This guide is dedicated to the memory of Eddie Ellison,

friend, inspiration and Transform Patron, who died in January 2007

Acknowledgements

• Written by Steve Rolles.

• Contributing editors: Mike Jay, Danny Kushlick, Piers Gibbon, Mark Haden, Robert Wicke,
Axel Klein, and Nat Griffin.
• Thanks to the Atlantic Philanthropies for funding the production of this publication
• Thanks to the Transform staff, trustees, volunteers, funders (past and present), supporters
and friends for ongoing support, inspiration and encouragement with the production
of this publication.
• Design and layout by Nick Ellis at Halo. www.halomedia.co.uk

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and Transform Drug Policy Foundation,
not necessarily Atlantic Philanthropies or other Transform funders.

Copyright: Transform Drug Policy Foundation 2007.

This report may be reproduced in part or in full, free and without permission, on the
understanding that Transform Drug Policy Foundation is credited and a link to the Transform
website www.tdpf.org.uk is provided.

www.tdpf.org.uk
Our Mission:
Transform exists to reduce harm and promote sustainable health and wellbeing by
bringing about a just and effective system to regulate and control drugs at local,
national and international levels

Our Activities:
• Research, policy analysis and innovative policy development
• Challenging government to demonstrate rational, fact-based evidence to
support its policies and expenditure
• Promoting alternative, evidence-based policies to parliamentarians and
government agencies
• Advising non-governmental organisations whose work is affected by drugs
• Providing an informed, rational and clear voice in the public and media debate
on UK and international drug policy

Our Vision:
• Social justice: restoration of human rights and dignity to the marginalised and
disadvantaged, and regeneration of deprived neighbourhoods
• Reduced social costs: an end to the largest cause of acquisitive crime and street
prostitution, and consequent falls in the non-violent prison population
• Reduced serious crime: dramatic curtailment of opportunities and incentives
for organised and violent crime
• Public finances: the financial benefits of discontinued drug enforcement
expenditure and the taxation of regulated drugs
• Public health: creation of an environment in which drug use can be managed
and drug users can lead healthier lives
• Ethics: adherence to ethical standards and principles, including fair trade, in the
manufacture, supply and distribution of drugs
• Reduced war and conflict: an end to the illegal drug trade’s contribution to
conflict and political instability in producer and transit countries


 CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
About Transform 1
CONTENTS 2
Foreword and Introduction 4

1. Fault lines in the debate – understanding the different mindsets 10

• Firstly, what is prohibition? 11
• Summary table of the key fault lines in the debate 12
• Different audiences in the debate 14
• The fault lines within current policy 15

2. Bridging the fault lines - Bringing the two sides together 18

• Agreeing on the principles underlying drug policy 20
• The aims of drug policy 23

3. Critiquing the failings of current policy 24
• Challenging prohibitionist myths and misinformation 25
• Lies, damned lies, statistics and ‘look: prohibition works!’ 26
• Co-opting the language of the drug war 29

4. Making the case for regulated markets 32
• From ‘legalisation’ to ‘regulation’ 33
• Be clear about what regulated markets are (and what they are not) 33
• Re-establishing the primacy of a public health / harm reduction approach 35
• You can be ‘anti-drug’ and ‘pro-reform’ 36
• Keeping the focus on the international dimension 36


• Talking about……Alcohol and Tobacco 37
• Talking about……Cannabis 40
• Talking about……Crack 41
• Talking about……Personal rights 44

5. Responding to concerns about moves toward legal regulation of drugs 46

1. Will prevalence of use rise? 47
2. Vulnerable groups: ‘what about the kids?’ 49
3. Will profit motivated multinationals take control from the cartels? 51
4. Morals and messages? 52
5. A leap in the dark? 52
6. How do we get there? 54
7. Don’t the UN treaties mean reform is impossible? 54
8. Where will all the criminals go? 56
9. When bad things happen 56

6. Further resources, references, appendix 58

• Reviews of UK drug policy 59
• Key reports on alternatives to prohibition 59
• Just the facts 60
• The rhetoric 61
• Appendix: Using common ground to critique prohibition
and make the case for regulation (summary table) 63
• Notes and references 71


 FOREWORD
Transform has spent ten years drawing public
attention to the failures of prohibition and
the urgent need to replace it with a system of
legal regulation, honing the arguments in the
crucible of debate. Correctly applied, the ideas
in this guide have the power to bring about truly
transformational change across the world. It
shows, for the first time, how to conceptualise
and articulate the arguments for reform in such
a way that they are unassailable. It will give you
the tools and the facts to toughen your mind, to
challenge prohibitionist misinformation, win over
detractors and build the momentum for change
in any debating arena you enter.
From Denial to Acceptance
There is a well-recognised five-stage process
that many go through in response to receiving
catastrophic news – Denial, Anger, Bargaining,
Depression, and Acceptance. In this case the
catastrophe is the realisation that a ‘drug-free
world’ is not going to happen and, worse, that
our seemingly intractable ‘drug problem’ is to a
large extent a self-inflicted nightmare. Modern

policy making is frozen in the opening stages
of denial and anger, creating a climate that is
intensely hostile to attempts to adjust to the
new environment and reinvest in the new reality.
This guide is intended as a drug policy debating
manual for those willing to undertake the journey
from denial to reinvestment and then to help
guide others through the process.
Two levels of debate
Anyone entering this debate must recognise that
it operates on two very distinct levels. The first
is the rational evidence-based discussion about
what works and what does not, scientifically
evaluating the outcomes of different policy
options and making rational decisions based on
that analysis. The second is the one governed
by political considerations and priorities, the
kind of debate seen when senior politicians
enter the ring. These considerations range from
international issues relating to UK and US foreign
policy, to appealing to emotive and populist ideas:
typically, an overriding need to appear ‘tough on
drugs’ (or avoid appearing ‘soft on drugs’). When
“The soft minded man always fears change. He feels security in
the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new.
For him the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea...There is
little hope for us until we become tough minded enough to break
loose from the shackles of prejudice, half truths and downright
ignorance… A nation or a civilisation that continues to produce
soft minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an
instalment plan.”

Martin Luther King – ‘Strength to Love’

the debate moves to this level, evidence is all too
often jettisoned in favour of macho posturing
and rhetoric, spin and sound bites.
In this political arena a virulent disease known
as ‘Green Room Syndrome’ is epidemic, where
strongly held beliefs on reform disappear as soon
as the record button is pressed for broadcast.
This is something we have experienced again
and again: fellow-debaters who privately admit
to agreeing with us in the Green Room before
a media interview, only to feign shock and
outrage at our position once the cameras and
microphones are on. There are many in politics
and public life who understand intellectually that
the prohibition of drugs is unsustainable, but
who default in public to moral grandstanding and
emotive appeals to the safety of their children.
A righteous stance
It does not require courage to call for reform.
Using the information in this booklet you will find
that sound principles combined with imagination
(and a little bit of factual homework) are quite
sufficient to negotiate your way successfully
through any debate. You can be assured that
you are standing in very distinguished company,
as the quotes scattered throughout this guide
demonstrate. Don’t be afraid of articulating
the values that underlie your position and
never concede the moral high ground. The
drug policy debate need not be a battleground
for entrenched and opposed ideologies; it can
become an arena from which we can develop
the momentum to make the world a better place.
Drug policy reform is a principled and necessary
step to enable us to address underlying issues
of global poverty, marginalisation and freedom.
Anyone arguing for drug policy reform is arguing
with the evidence firmly on their side, and taking
a righteous stance on an issue that has the
power to effect a transformational, and hugely
beneficial, paradigm shift in domestic and world
politics.
Danny Kushlick
Bristol
JULY 2007


 Introduction
About this guide
This is a guide to making the case for drug policy
and law reform from a position of confidence and
authority. It is based on Transform’s experience in
the public arena over the past ten years. In that
time we have discussed and debated drug policy
with Anne Widdecombe, Daily Mail columnists
and The Drugs Tsar (UK and US versions), as
well as Mayors, MPs, Ministers and even the
Prime Minister. We have been grilled by Select
Committees and Advisory Councils, by Jeremy
Paxman and John Snow, by the Conservatives
and the Lib-Dems, Greens and Socialists. We have
given talks in the Home Office, at universities, to
union meetings, mothers’ groups, prison workers,
drugs workers, magistrates, civil servants, the
police, drug users and bereaved parents, and as
far afield as Brussels, Athens, Seattle, Vancouver,
LA and Belfast. There’s a place for modesty, but
it’s not here – we really do know what we are
talking about.
This guide aims to do three things:
• Reframe the debate by moving it away from
polarised ideological positions and putting it
squarely in the arena of rational, evidence-
based policy thinking
• Provide the analytical framework and language
to challenge entrenched prohibitionist policy
positions with confidence and clarity, and to
put forward the case for alternative policies
including legally regulated drug markets
• Guide you to the facts you will need to
support this progressive policy position

It is essentially all Transform’s ‘secrets’ learnt
on the front line of the drug debate, and we
hope it will provide the tools for individuals in
the public or policy arenas to take the debate
forward towards real reform of policy and law in
the coming months and years. The structure of
the guide seeks to provide a narrative thread.
• Explaining the fault lines in the debate and
the different mindsets that generate them
• Showing how these fault lines are often
misunderstandings that can easily be
bridged. Once common ground is established,
it becomes possible to transcend the
polarisation and confrontation that has
dogged the debate and held back reform
• Demonstrating how the common ground
- drug policy aims and principles on which
both sides can agree - can be used as the
basis for a rational and fundamental critique
of prohibition
• Showing how to continue this analysis into
making the case for legally regulated drug
production and supply
• Showing how to respond to the most
common concerns about moves towards
legally regulated drug markets
This guide is aimed at people in government and
civil society who understand that prohibition
has been disastrously counter-productive and
appreciate the need for an alternative, but who
lack the analysis, facts or language tools to engage
in the public debate with real confidence.
 “Some argue that, with the battle against drug-linked gun crime costing millions of
pounds and many lives…the only solution is to legalise all drugs. That argument is yet
to be resolved....... we are long way from even having an informed debate on this most
explosive of issues.”
Inevitably this short guide cannot provide all the
answers; you will need to tailor your approach
and use elements of the guide selectively for
different audiences. What it aims to provide is a
basic framework and tools that can be adapted
to most scenarios you are likely to encounter. At
the end we have provided detailed references and
links to further information.
Please give us feedback on this document and let
us know about your experiences in public debate,
so that we can develop and improve it for future
editions.
Where are we up to today?
The cause of drug law reform has been a
prolonged struggle that began as soon as drug
prohibition in its modern form came into being.
Although prohibitions of various drugs stretch
back into the 18th century (see Transform’s
history of prohibition timeline1), the modern drug
law reform movement began in earnest with the
social movements of the 1960s. It was during this
decade that the 1961 UN Convention on Drugs
enshrined prohibition as a truly global policy, and
recreational drug use in the West simultaneously
began its dramatic rise toward current levels.
The drugs debate has moved on considerably
since that time, with the political, social and
cultural landscape shifting and evolving
dramatically, both in the UK and in the wider
world. All the problems associated with drug
DAILY MAIL leader editorial – 30.12.03
prohibition and illegal markets have continued
to worsen over the past four decades: the
prevalence of illegal drug use has risen steadily
despite the many billions spent on enforcing a
policy intended to eradicate it. As prohibition’s
policy outcomes have deteriorated, the volume
of calls for a rethink and serious consideration of
alternative policy options has grown. This growth
accelerated particularly rapidly during the 1990s
as recreational use of illegal drugs became a truly
mainstream youth phenomenon, and problematic
use (of heroin in particular) ballooned to epidemic
proportions. Problematic drug use now causes a
level of secondary crime-related harms to wider
society that is unprecedented in modern history,
and was entirely unanticipated when drugs were
prohibited.
It is now clear that our drug policy cannot
continue down the same failed path forever.
Prohibition’s failure is now widely understood
and acknowledged among key stakeholders in
the debate. Although politicians have thus far
been the primary beneficiaries of the policy2, the
political benefits of pursuing prohibition are now
waning and the political costs of its continuation
are becoming unsustainable. The intellectual and
political consensus supporting a ‘War on Drugs’
is crumbling rapidly, and calls for ‘more of the
same’, or ever tougher enforcement responses,
no longer go unchallenged. Since the 1990s, a
vigorous network of domestic and international
NGOs have been making the case for substantive
pragmatic reform to drug policy and law3.

 “Never have so many dangerous drugs been seized by police and Customs. But never
have so many drugs been taken nor has so much crime been caused by them. However
much is done to stop the threat, the drugs industry – and it is an industry – is several
jumps ahead. It is obvious that something new needs to be tried.”
DAILY MIRROR leader editorial – 25.06.03

However, although the failure of the current
policy is now widely accepted, even within
government, there is less consensus on ‘so, where
now?’. Those in a state of denial over the failure
of the drug war typically argue that policy can
be tweaked within the prohibitionist framework
to make it more effective. This usually means
directing more resources into treatment and
harm reduction, and perhaps being more tolerant
of low level drug users. There is considerable
room for manoeuvre within UK and international
law4 for policies that could improve the current
situation and indeed many such changes are
already underway. In recent years we have seen
cannabis reclassification, the expansion of heroin
and methadone prescribing, harm reduction
programs such as the needle exchanges and
‘injecting kits’, and increased investment in drug
treatment.
illegal markets and harshly enforced prohibition
in the first place. They never address its
fundamental problems: the creation of crime and
illegal markets and the injustice of criminalising
drug users. Tinkering with domestic policy under
strict international prohibition is not a long term
solution. It is an attempt to minimise harms
within a legal framework that maximises them,
and thus its successes will always be marginal
ones.
By contrast, the truth that underlies the drug
reform movement - that a punitive enforcement
approach is actively counter-productive – is
far harder to address directly. This prevents it
being followed to its obvious logical conclusion:
decriminalising consenting adult drug use and
moving towards the legal regulation and control
of some or all drug production and supply.

Internationally, reforms have gone much further.
A number of countries have progressed to de
facto decriminalision of personal possession
of all drugs, including Russia, Portugal, Spain,
Switzerland and Holland. Harm reduction
measures have been widely adopted, including
maintenance prescribing of heroin (and
increasingly of stimulants), supervised drug
consumption rooms, and even tolerance of low
level sales of some drugs, such as the cannabis
‘coffee shop’ system in Holland.
Yet this last taboo is now also crumbling, as
Transform’s collection of quotes from supporters
of reform (see box) so resoundingly demonstrates.
The Transform quote archive also reveals that
there have been strong arguments in favour of
drug law reform in media as diverse as the Mirror,
the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, The Times,
the Economist, the New Statesman and many
others besides. You really do not have to wait for
the reform position to gain mainstream traction
– it already has .

The problem is that, for the most part, these Whilst it remains important to support and
reforms are merely reducing harms created by encourage the process of incremental change


away from harshly enforced prohibition towards “If government-controlled
a new evidence-based public health approach, drugs were cheaply
there are already many groups dedicated to doing available, might it not
this and much change is already happening in this cut through this hideous
direction. The specific task of Transform and the vicious circle? Users
movement for longer term reform is to make the wouldn’t need to fund their
case and campaign for a repeal of the absolute habit by making our lives
drug prohibition currently enshrined in domestic hell. Dealers, meanwhile,
and international law. It is only this fundamental would find nobody to
step that will make it possible to end the criminal buy their overpriced,
free-for-all of the illegal drugs market by adulterated wares. We
replacing it with appropriately regulated drug could spend every penny
production and supply. That is what will lead to saved from enforcement
a real transformation of society, both for those and imprisonment and
who use drugs and those who don’t; and that is drug-related crime on
what this guide is all about. treatment, prevention and
educating people not to
Steve Rolles take the stupid things in the
London 2007 first place”

THE SUN: ‘Why NOT legalise drugs...it

worked fine the last time’ 12.11.05

Who supports reform?

Advocates of drug policy and law reform now encompass an astonishingly broad
spectrum of political thought, including prominent thinkers from all major political
parties, numerous world leaders, Nobel laureates, senior police, ex-ministers, religious
leaders, academics, authors, artists and intellectuals. Quotes from many of these
individuals and agencies are provided throughout this document, and Transform has
also produced a unique indexed archive of referenced quotes which can be viewed
online here: www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_supporters. This extensive and
often surprising collection of quotes emphasises how holding a progressive position
on drug policy is no longer an extreme position, but a legitimate, even mainstream
view. If anything, it is the shrill advocates of prohibition who are increasingly
marginalised as irrational extremists and ideologues.


 1. Faultlines in the drug
policy debate:
understanding the
different mindsets
This chapter considers the key fault lines in the drug debate: on
the one side the ideological positions underlying prohibition, and
on the other the rational arguments for reform. In doing so it
aims to provide the framework for the analysis and debating
techniques that form the main body of this guide.

10
Firstly, what is
prohibition?
Any activity or product can in theory be prohibited
by law. Specifically, drug prohibition is a globalised
legal system (under the UN drug treaties 1961,
1971, and 1988, signed into the domestic law of
over 150 states including the UK) that mandates
criminal sanctions for the production, supply and
possession/use of certain psychoactive drugs,
although the sanctions/penalties for different
offences vary widely between countries.
The stated aim of prohibition is to reduce the
production, supply and use of the specified drugs,
and ultimately to create a ‘drug-free society’.
The policy of drug prohibition has often been
referred to as the ‘War on Drugs’, one of many
military metaphors originally employed by US
governments in the 1970s.
The term ‘prohibition’ is used in the UK’s
2002 updated National Drug Strategy, and by
Government ministers and Home Office officials
in reference to current drug policy. The 1998
United Nations Drug Control Programme ten year
strategy, to which the UK is a signatory, has the
slogan: “A Drug Free World: We Can Do It!” and
established as its objective the eradication (or
significant reduction) of illicit opium, coca and
cannabis production worldwide by 2008.
The public understanding of the word ‘prohibition’
(often written with a capital P) derives from the
alcohol prohibition era from 1920 to 1932 in
the US, popularised by gangster films about
characters such as Al Capone. For this reason it
may be useful to clarify early on that you are
talking about ‘contemporary’ or ‘modern drug
prohibition’, or the ‘current prohibition of certain
drugs’. Alcohol prohibition was a thirteen year
experiment that failed in dramatic style. It was
eventually repealed, with alcohol brought back
within a legal regulatory framework.
Using the term ‘prohibition’ to describe current
drug policy can be a useful way of highlighting the
similarity between the problems of modern drug
prohibition and historical alcohol prohibition -
widely understood to have been repealed because
it was expensive, counterproductive and created
significant health and crime harms. Today’s drug
problems closely mirror those in the USA in 1930,
except that they now encompass many more
drugs, and a vastly enlarged and global illegal
market. (see: FAQ on prohibtion5, and: History of
prohibition timeline1)
It is important to make a distinction between
drug prohibition as described here – which puts
an absolute prohibition on the production, supply
and use of certain substances, and regulated drug
markets (e.g. alcohol) under which some activities
are legal and some remain prohibited (eg. sales
to minors, purchase outside of licensed premises).
Prohibition is an absolutist position, whereas
its repeal opens the door for a wide variety of
possible regulatory options (see chapter 4 –
‘Making the case for regulated markets’ for more
discussion on this)
11
 Summary table of key fault lines in
the debate between prohibitionist
and reform positions
Those who support the prohibition of drugs tend to share a set of underlying assumptions about why
these drugs are prohibited, and why it is important that they should remain so. Those who advocate
reform of drug policy tend to do so on the basis of a different set of assumptions. The table below sets
out the assumptions that typically lie behind these two polarised positions.

Status Quo position* Reform position

Illegal drug use must be eradicated People have always used drugs, and always will

Any use of illegal drugs is problematic Most illegal drug use is non-problematic. Many of
the health harms associated with illegal drug use are
caused by their illegality

Problematic drug use is caused by using drugs Problematic drug use is primarily a symptom of
underlying personal or social problems. Drugs can
exacerbate underlying problems

Drugs make people lose control and behave People often take drugs partly to lose control (but it
dangerously can get out of control)

Legalisation and regulation is a step into the We have centuries of experience in legally regulating
unknown thousands of different drugs

Drug law reform is being forced through by the Drug law reform is supported by individuals from
‘liberal elite’ across the social and political spectrum

Prohibition protects the health of individuals Prohibition creates new public health problems and
maximises harms associated with illegal drug use

Prohibition sends an important message about The criminal justice system should not be used to
avoiding drugs and their dangers send public health messages

Prohibition reduces the prevalence of use, and limits Prevalence of use has risen dramatically under
experimentation prohibition. Enforcement activity is, at best, a
marginal influence on levels of use which rise and fall
largely independently of policy and law

12
 Status Quo position Reform position
Harm reduction encourages drug use Harm reduction saves lives. Trying to discourage drug
use by maximising harm is unethical and ineffective.

Reduced prevalence is the most important indicator Reduced harm is the most important indicator of
of policy success policy success

Increased availability leads to increased drug use Increased availability may increase use, but well
and hence to increased problematic use. Prohibition regulated availability will certainly reduce harm.
creates a barrier against temptation and chaos Prohibition leads many into temptation and is
creating criminal chaos

Calling for legalisation and regulation brings the law Counterproductive enforcement brings the law into
into disrepute disrepute

Prohibition is based on a strong moral position that The policy that is most effective at reducing harm and
drugs are unacceptable maximising well being is the moral position

A strong ideological stand is more important than Measurable effectiveness is more important than
effectiveness ideology

Human rights issues of users can be ignored Human rights issues of users and the wider
community are paramount

Drugs are dangerous and should be prohibited Drugs are dangerous and should be appropriately
controlled and regulated

Prohibition controls drug use and drug markets Prohibition abdicates control of illegal drug
production and supply to the criminal networks and
unregulated dealers

Ending prohibition would automatically hand control Ending prohibition allows for various models of
of the trade to multinational corporations (who control and regulation and takes the market away
would aggressively market drugs) from criminals (who already aggressively market
drugs)

The health, social and financial costs of prohibition Prohibition is hugely costly and counterproductive on
are a price worth paying most indicators

Underlying causes of problematic use can be Prohibition causes and exacerbates many problems
addressed within a prohibitionist framework associated with illegal drug use, and is an obstacle to
addressing underlying causes

We must not ’give up’ the fight against illegal drugs Drug policies should be adapted in response to
evidence of effectiveness

Prohibition is ‘tough on drugs’ Prohibition creates a ‘gangster’s charter’

Producer countries are willfully ignoring global Producer countries are unintentionally pushed into
prohibition illegal production by the economics of illegal drug
markets under global prohibition

* Inevitably these are generalisations, and not necessarily the precise policy positions of any individual

13
 Different
audiences in
the debate
These starkly opposed assumptions mean that
the drugs debate is often conducted between
groups of people who see the issues around
drugs and their control very differently. You
will encounter a range of different audiences in
the political, media, NGO or public arenas, who
have a range of different views on drug policy
and policy reform. It is important to adapt your
approach accordingly. The positions that you
will find yourself arguing against can be roughly
categorised as follows:
• Evangelical prohibitionists
These tend to be people directly involved in drug
enforcement; those who have a strong faith
position (where drug use often equates to ‘sin’);
or, occasionally, those who have had bad personal
experiences with illegal drugs. (Note: none of
these backgrounds preclude supporting reform –
see: Transform’s archive of high profile supporters
of reform). Always remember and respect the fact
that these views are usually sincere and well-
intentioned - they may have witnessed real drug
related harm, are fearful it will get worse and
passionately want to prevent it. To them drugs
are a Pandora’s Box, and prohibition – the law
- is keeping the lid on it. They genuinely believe
that ‘legalisation’ (as they perceive it) would pry
open the box, cost lives and make the world a
worse place. As such, they see themselves as
prohibition’s principled guardians and advocates
of law reform as their natural enemies.
Such views may be so deeply entrenched that
there is little point trying to turn them round - it
14
can be like arguing Darwinism with committed
creationists. Sometimes the best you can achieve
with such individuals or audiences is to use any
public forum as an opportunity to put your views
across, contrasting your rational reform position
with the ideological prohibitionist one – and let
the audience make their own minds up. That said,
in Transform’s experience many of the least likely
people, including some of our seemingly most
implacable opponents, have in time been won
over. Never give up hope, but be ready to cut your
losses.
• Knee-jerk prohibitionists
‘Knee-jerk’ isn’t meant here in any rude way,
maybe ‘prohibitionists by default’ would be
a good alternative term. These are people,
probably constituting the bulk of your audience,
who default to supporting some or most of the
prohibitionist positions outlined above on the
basis of exposure to one sided discourse and
debate over a number of years. It is important
to remember that, superficially at least, drug
war rhetoric is very appealing, especially when
unchallenged in mainstream debate by any
coherent alternative. This audience’s position is
based on ignorance of the reform analysis, rather
than entrenched ideology, and is fertile ground
for informing and changing perceptions. The
shifting public opinion on cannabis reform (15%
supporting decriminalisation/legalisation in the
mid 80s, to over 50% today7) provides strong
evidence of how exposure to informed debate
on this issue invariably pushes people in the
direction of supporting reform.
• Unconvinced reformers
This audience is your most receptive target.
These are people who understand the failings
of the current system and instinctively know
that ‘something needs to be done’, but they are
unclear what that might be. In the absence of a
clear argument being made for moves towards
legal regulation they will generally not feel
inclined to challenge reforms being put forward
by government, such as increased coerced
treatment or harsh criminal justice crackdowns
and ‘get tough’ initiatives. Their views on legal
regulation may be clouded by misunderstandings
about ‘legalisation’ (see: ‘from ‘legalisation’
to ‘regulation’ p.33), put forward by cannabis
evangelists or extreme libertarians. When they
are presented with a coherent set of policy
alternatives this group will usually be happy to
support them.
• Prohibitionist politicians
There is a fourth audience – the prohibitionist
politicians, potentially the most important
audience of all but often the most unequivocal
and effective opponents of reform. As discussed
earlier (see foreword) the drug policy debate
operates at an entirely different level to the
rational / scientific one. It is important to bear
in mind that many politicians hold a hard-line
prohibitionist position for self-interested and
career reasons – they are self-appointed ‘drug
warriors’. Usually they are senior parliamentarians
(ministers and their shadows), their spokespeople
and the civil servants who back them up. They
will trot out a ‘tough on drugs’ party line and
back it up with a well-practiced repertoire of
moral outrage or evasion, regardless of their
personal views. They are the nearest thing you
will encounter to a mortal enemy in this debate:
they know their case is indefensible but argue it
anyway. They are treating an important debate
with disdain and in doing so are perpetuating a
system they know to be harmful. No amount of
brilliant argument will sway them because they
are not interested in genuine intellectual debate
or new ideas. If you have thoughts on how to
influence this group please get in touch with us.
The fault lines
within current
drug policy
As a way of demonstrating the fault lines in
the drug debate, consider the two pieces of text
juxtaposed overleaf. On the left is the introduction
to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy by
the Prime Minister Tony Blair, published in
March 2004 . In many respects it reflects the
reformer’s perspective on the drug debate fault
lines described above: an acceptance of the
reality of drug use (in this case alcohol) in the
UK and a rational strategy to minimise alcohol
related harm, both to consumers and to wider
society, through a series of pragmatic regulatory
responses based on evidence of effectiveness.
On the right is the identical text with one minor
editorial change made by Transform: the word
‘alcohol’ has been changed to ‘drugs’, and the
word ‘drinking’ has been changed to ‘drug use’.
This juxtaposition demonstrates that the fault
lines in this debate, once the ‘hot button’ issue of
drugs is removed, are by no means as polarised
as they appear. The exact same fault lines actually
exist within current drug policy.
Bizarrely, the Government is simultaneously
running, on the one hand, a policy on legal drugs
based on using public health and evidence led
regulation to minimise harm, and on the other
hand a policy on illegal drugs that ignores
evidence of effectiveness and uses the criminal
justice system to enforce a dogmatic moral view.
15
 Transform have read out the revised version
of the text below (right) in debates to great
effect. It really forces people to think (and,
whilst not meant as a joke, sometimes gets a
few laughs).
WHY THIS...BUT NOT THIS?
Why This …
Millions of us enjoy drinking alcohol with few,
if any, ill effects. Indeed moderate drinking can
bring some health benefits. But, increasingly,
alcohol misuse by a small minority is causing two
major, and largely distinct, problems: on the one
hand crime and anti-social behaviour in town
and city centres, and on the other harm to health
as a result of binge- and chronic drinking.
The Strategy Unit’s analysis last year showed that
alcohol - related harm is costing around £20bn a
year , and that some of the harms associated with
alcohol are getting worse.
This is why the Government has been looking
at how best to tackle the problems of alcohol
misuse. The aim has been to target alcohol-related
harm and its causes without interfering with the
pleasure enjoyed by the millions of people who
drink responsibly.
This report sets out the way forward. Alongside
the interim report published last year it describes
in detail the current patterns of drinking – and
the specific harms associated with alcohol . And
it clearly shows that the best way to minimise
the harms is through partnership between
government, local authorities, police, industry
and the public themselves.
16
… But Not This?
Millions of us enjoy drug use with few, if any, ill
effects. Indeed moderate drug use can bring some
health benefits. But, increasingly, drug misuse by
a small minority is causing two major, and largely
distinct, problems: on the one hand crime and
anti-social behaviour in town and city centres,
and on the other harm to health as a result of
binge- and chronic drug use .
The Strategy Unit’s analysis last year showed that
drug-related harm is costing around £20bn a
year, and that some of the harms associated with
drugs are getting worse.
This is why the Government has been looking at
how best to tackle the problems of drug misuse.
The aim has been to target drug-related harm and
its causes without interfering with the pleasure
enjoyed by the millions of people who use drugs
responsibly.
This report sets out the way forward. Alongside
the interim report published last year it describes
in detail the current patterns of drug use – and
the specific harms associated with drugs . And
it clearly shows that the best way to minimise
the harms is through partnership between
government, local authorities, police, industry
and the public themselves.
Why This …
For government, the priority is to work with the
police and local authorities so that existing laws
to reduce alcohol-related crime and disorder are
properly enforced, including powers to shut down
any premises where there is a serious problem of
disorder arising from it. Treatment services need
to be able to meet demand. And the public needs
access to clear information setting out the full
and serious effects of heavy drinking.
For the drinks industry, the priority is to end
irresponsible promotions and advertising;
to better ensure the safety of their staff and
customers; and to limit the nuisance caused to
local communities.
Ultimately, however, it is vital that individuals
can make informed and responsible decisions
about their own levels of alcohol consumption.
Everyone needs to be able to balance their right
to enjoy a drink with the potential risks to their
own – and others’ – health and wellbeing. Young
people in particular need to better understand the
risks involved in harmful patterns of drinking.
I strongly welcome this report and the Government
has accepted all its conclusions. These will now
be implemented as government policy and will,
in time, bring benefits to us all in the form of a
healthier and happier relationship with alcohol.
Foreword to the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy
for England8
Cabinet Office
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, March 2004
… But Not This?
For government, the priority is to work with the
police and local authorities so that existing laws
to reduce drug-related crime and disorder are
properly enforced, including powers to shut down
any premises where there is a serious problem of
disorder arising from it. Treatment services need
to be able to meet demand. And the public needs
access to clear information setting out the full
and serious effects of heavy drug use.
For the drugs industry, the priority is to end
irresponsible promotions and advertising;
to better ensure the safety of their staff and
customers; and to limit the nuisance caused to
local communities.
Ultimately, however, it is vital that individuals can
make informed and responsible decisions about
their own levels of drug consumption. Everyone
needs to be able to balance their right to enjoy
using drugs with the potential risks to their own –
and others’ – health and wellbeing. Young people
in particular need to better understand the risks
involved in harmful patterns of drug use.
I strongly welcome this report and the Government
has accepted all its conclusions. These will now
be implemented as government policy and will,
in time, bring benefits to us all in the form of a
healthier and happier relationship with drugs.
Foreword to the Drug Harm Reduction Strategy
for England
Cabinet Office (with edits by Transform)
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, March 2004
17
 2. Finding common ground
- bringing the two sides
together
The fault lines outlined above have, in Transform’s experience, held
back the drug policy debate for many years. Too often, particularly
in the media, complex issues are reduced to a knockabout between
the hard-line prohibitionist ‘drug warriors’ on one side and the
‘liberal’ reformers or ‘legalisers’ on the other.

“We can agree about many things. All drugs are bad and we
ought to reduce them. The one way that one does not deal
with something that is dangerous and bad is to hand it lock
stock and barrel to organised crime. That is what the Misuse
of Drugs Act 1971 does. The problem is not prohibition, the
problem is the failure of prohibition. The only way that one
can control a dangerous commodity or any commodity is to
bring it within the law. We need to repeal the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971 and replace it with a better and more appropriate
tool that allows us to control the market in those incredibly
dangerous commodities. At that stage we can remove the
profit, remove the crime and devote all of our resources and
energies to providing better treatment and real prevention.
At the moment we are not doing that, and we shall not if the
Government continue down their present path.”

Lord Mancroft, Conservative peer

Hansard, House of Lords Debate 11.06.03

18
Participants on both sides of the fault line have
often been guilty of misunderstanding and
misrepresenting each others’ positions, rarely
showing any willingness to listen or give ground.
The result is a repetitive debate that invariably
creates more heat than light and never progresses
beyond conflict or stalemate. This polarisation
(often driven by the media’s desire to present
a clash between strongly contrasting views) is a
barrier to reform, and must be overcome before
real change can take place. Progress requires the
two apparently irreconcilable sides of this debate
to find some common ground and adopt a new
language that will enable meaningful dialogue.
This chapter aims to show how to find common
ground in the debate about the aims and
principles of an effective drugs policy.
THE PARADOX OF PROHIBITION *
ILLEGAL MARKET
GANGSTERISM
social and health harms
TOTAL PROHIBITION DECRIMINLISATION
DEFACTO PRESCRIPTION
DECRIMINLISATION
In reality the policy debate is nowhere near as
black and white as the media debate portrays it
to be. It is not a battle between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’
drug campaigners, left and right, liberals and
conservatives, or any other stark binary choice.
It needs to become a rational, intelligent and
sophisticated debate over the range of policy
alternatives for addressing the issues of drugs in
society.
It is important, therefore, should you be engaging
in this debate in the media or any public forum,
not to let yourself be pushed in the direction
of a polarised emotive debate merely for sake
of audience entertainment. Whilst there does
exist a broad spectrum of views (from extreme
authoritarian prohibition to extreme free
UNREGULATED
LEGAL MARKET
DRUG POLICY SPECTRUM
STRICT MARKET COMMERCIAL
REGULATION PROMOTION
LOOSE MARKET
REGULATION
* Thanks to John Marks and Mark Haden
19
 market legalisation) almost everybody, including
Transform, lies somewhere between the two,
usually nearer the middle - and each other - than
at either extreme.
Transform advocates the regulated central point
on this graphic model – on the basis that this is
the one that causes the least harm. This guide is
about making the case for that position
It is important to note that the different sides
of this debate do not equate easily to broader
political or ideological fault lines. The status quo
/ reform fault line is not simply the authoritarian
/ libertarian divide, nor the right-wing / left-wing
divide, nor the socially conservative / socially
liberal divide. This is a simplistic analysis, shaped
largely by the media’s need for dialectical drama.
Drug policy reform is supported by prominent
thinkers and intellectuals from across the political
spectrum, from Noam Chomsky to Milton
Friedman, from members of all major parties in
the UK and in the US, and from countries with
a wide range of social, economic, political and
cultural landscapes (again, see the Transform
archive of supporters of reform6). Some advocates
of reform envisage replacing prohibition with a
libertarian regime, others with draconian forms
of social control. The reform argument itself is
non partisan – it is simply a pragmatic position
led by evidence of effectiveness and public health
/ harm reduction principles. Calling for legally
regulated drug markets is actually the rational
and moderate position between the ideological
poles of absolute prohibition and free market
libertarianism.
The suggestion that the drug law reform
movement intends to ‘liberalise’ or ‘relax’ the drug
laws is a common misconception that must be
challenged. Advocates of law reform want more
control and regulation of drug markets, not less.
We are specifically calling for more and better
20
regulation, and are specifically critical of the
deregulation and lack of control that prohibition
creates.
Agreeing on the
principles under-
lying drug policy
The first step towards establishing useful common
ground is to point out that there are aims of
drug policy, and principles under which it should
operate, that everyone in this debate can agree
on. The principles and aims listed below will not
meet with substantial disagreement (with some
specific exceptions – see notes) and as such can
successfully provide the starting point for more
constructive debate between the advocates of
alternative policy positions.
Establishing agreement on these fundamentals
will allow you to maintain some control over the
debate, defuse the anticipated tensions, appeal to
the shared concerns of all participants, and create
some breathing room in which a meaningful
discussion can take place. From this point the
debate can develop in a more constructive
and rational way towards asking which policy
alternatives are likely to bring about these policy
aims we all seek.
A table appended at the end of the guide (p.63)
uses these common ground principles and aims
as the basis for a more detailed point by point
critique of prohibition, and case for reform.
• All drugs are potentially dangerous,
and all drug use is intrinsically risky
Making this point clear early on immediately
establishes distance between you and any
 Media Pitfalls
Where possible, attempt to engage in forums where more detailed analysis is
possible – whether this be a decent length for an article or a reasonable time to
discuss issues in broadcast media or public debate. There is a real problem trying to
present often complex and nuanced analysis in the media which puts huge emphasis
on concision – often only a couple of sentences in print or 30 seconds or less in
broadcast. For many people the idea of legalising and regulating drugs is, initially
at least, quite shocking. You need a reasonable amount of time to clarify what you
are calling for, make your case, and back it up with facts and argument.

If you are pushed for time/space then you will need to work extra hard at making
what you say as clear as possible – potentially boiling your points down to short
‘soundbites’, however unsatisfactory this may be. Throughout this guide we have
included useful examples in the form of quotations from the great and good. Take a
lead from these and if necessary work out your own in advance. Everyone in policy
debate is playing the same game – it’s a fact of life

preconceptions about the law reform position
being ‘pro-drug’ (a meaningless term anyway) or
somehow ‘defending’ drugs or suggesting they
are safe or cool. It also takes the sting out of
many anti-regulation/legalisation arguments that
revolve around shock/horror facts and anecdotes
about how dangerous drug use is. As we will see
later, the fact that drugs are potentially dangerous
is at the core of the argument for their effective
regulation.
ineffectiveness), and secondly because it draws
the debate away from the ideological fault
lines, and towards the reality of prohibition’s
failure. Emphasising evidence of effectiveness
is a key part of re-conceptualising the debate
as a rational/scientific one rather than a moral/
ideological one.
• Drug policy should offer good value
for money

• Drug policy should be based on
evidence of effectiveness
This is the standard pragmatist’s argument,
usefully engaging with the policy maker’s
language and concern with ‘what works?’. It is a
key point to emphasise, firstly because no-one
can seriously make a rational argument against
it (that we either shouldn’t consider the evidence
or that policy should be based on evidence of
This is essentially the same as the above principle
that drug policy should be based on evidence of
effectiveness, but has a more direct appeal to
people’s pockets: both policy makers who have
to decide how to allocate limited budgets, and
the wider public who, as tax payers, are the ones
funding drug prohibition in the first instance.
Emphasising this principle is another useful way
of focusing debate on policy outcomes (rather
than processes) and evidence of effectiveness.

21
 Because enforcement-led policy offers stunningly
poor value for money – it is hugely expensive
and creates further costs to society – economics
is very fertile territory for arguing the reform
position.
• Policy should be based on reality and
adapt to changing circumstances
This principle also follows from broader pragmatic
argument, but is worth spelling out. What seems
obvious for all policy - that it should be based
on reality - is less clear for the prohibitionist
paradigm, the goals of which remain intimately
entwined with a mission to promote abstinence
and regulate pleasure. Given society’s deep-
rooted dependencies on alcohol, tobacco and
prescription drugs (not to mention numerous
other ‘vices’ and ‘sinful’ pleasures) the idea that we
can become free of precisely those drugs whose
effects are pleasurable becomes an absurdity. But
prohibition and its legal structures remain rooted
in these puritanical principles, despite the fact
that the social landscape has changed beyond
recognition in the 50 years or so since the UN
drug conventions were drafted. Furthermore,
these conventions were drafted, largely at the
behest of the US, to deal with a marginal drug
problem largely confined to ethnic minorities and
career criminals, not the huge swathes of the
population who use illicit drugs today.
• Drug policy is primarily a public
health issue
This is a more contentious point to make and
needs further careful development (see chapter
4, p.35). However, if you do succeed in moving
the debate towards your position that drugs are
primarily a public health issue, the prohibitionists
are obliged to argue why it shouldn’t be – or,
more specifically, why certain drugs should be
dealt with as a public health issue (e.g. alcohol)
and others primarily as criminal activity
22
(see ‘the fault lines within existing policy’ p15).
• Policy should seek to reduce drug
related harm
Again this may prove more contentious. Transform
maintain that the overarching aim of drug policy
should be to minimise harm and maximise well-
being. Within this overarching objective we can
identify a number of specific aims to reduce
harms related to drug production, supply and
use, with success measured against relevant
indicators (including reduction in demand/use).
Prohibitionists traditionally maintain that the
aim of policy is to reduce the use of drugs and
ultimately to achieve a drug free society. This
aim sometimes has the feel of religious dogma
– a commandment to which all policy aims must
remain loyal, if the promised land of the drug-
free world is to be attained9.
It is important to point out that some ‘drug related
harms’ are associated with drug use and misuse
itself, while others are specifically created or
exacerbated by the enforcement of prohibitionist
policy and law (e.g. reusing dirty needles, crime
to support an illegal drug habit). Consequently,
reducing specific prohibition-related harms
feature within the aims of drug policy reform,
but become a thing of the past under a legally
regulated regime. As an analogy, reducing car
exhaust emissions would no longer be an aim of
transport policy if everyone was driving solar-
powered electric cars.
As you engage in the debate try to keep this
distinction in mind, making it clear that there
is a difference between the aims of drug policy
reform, (essentially to remove the harms created
by prohibition: see appendix p.63), and the aims
of drug policy itself (to maximise well-being and
minimise health and social harms related to drug
use and misuse). This also helps to highlight how,
when prohibition is replaced, we will be in a far
better position to address the underlying social alcohol) and the far more significant problems
ills that fuel most problematic drug use. caused by illegal markets.

• To minimise drug-related harm to

Aims of vulnerable groups, young people and

families

drug policy Whilst the ethics of dictating personal behaviour

to adults is a tricky area, for non-adults there are
clear arguments for programmes to prevent early
As developed by Transform, the core aims of drug
drug use as a public health initiative and as part
policy, which can only be properly addressed once
of a wider harm reduction approach.
the current prohibition of drugs is dismantled,
are:
• To ensure adequate provision of
support and drug treatment for people
• To minimise the prevalence of
seeking help
problematic drug use and related health
harms, including drug related death.
Some may argue that drug users don’t deserve
care or should not be allowed to receive the
Although this sounds uncontroversial, it actually
benefit of non-drug-using taxpayers’ money.
challenges a central tenet of current drug policy:
It’s a potentially thorny area (as recent debates
that any illicit drug use is unacceptable / illegal,
on restricting certain treatments/procedures
and / or that non-problematic drug use does not
to alcoholics/smokers have shown). It can be
exist. However, this assertion ignores the reality
avoided by highlighting the positive cost-benefit
that problematic drug users, defined by the
analysis of treatment versus continuation of
need for social or criminal justice intervention,
chaotic drug use.
are in reality only a small fraction of the drug-
using population. Transform argues that non-
The appendix (p.63) presents a summary table,
problematic use should not be the primary
using the principles and aims outlined above,
concern of Government, beyond efforts to
to highlight the problems with prohibition
prevent progression into problematic use, which
and the benefits of legal regulation.
can be supported on public health grounds if
there is evidence that they are effective.
“Prohibition doesn’t work,
• To minimise disorder, violence and as the US found out many
social nuisance related to drug use. years ago.”

• To minimise criminal activity John Reid MP, Home Secretary

associated with the production and DIscUSSING TOBACCO POLICY, Jeremy Vine
programme, BBC Radio 2, 11.11.04
supply of drugs

These two aims are linked; however, there is a

clear distinction between public order problems
caused by intoxication (overwhelmingly by

23
 3. Critiquing the failings
of current policy
Once some common ground has been established on the aims
and principles underlying drug policy, the next logical step iS to
critique prohibition based on these agreed aims and principles.
Generally speaking, this is not especially difficult, as prohibition
has failed on almost every indicator imaginable. The key here,
given that you are being listened to in the first place, is simply to
make sure you have the basic facts and analysis at your finger
tips.

Bear in mind, however, that no policy which has been such a

spectacular and consistent failure could have been sustained
for so long without a monumental propaganda effort to prop
it up. As you critique prohibition you will need to be aware of the
forest of misinformation, myth, and statistical chicanery that
defends it, so that you can cut through it when necessary.

“On issues like smoking, drinking and gambling, government

has three basic choices: we can prohibit, regulate or leave it
to the market. Prohibition does not work - it drives the activity
underground ....... Only ideological extremists favour a free-
for-all where only the laws of the market hold sway. So the
third option is regulation...’Better regulation’ has to mean
government engaging people in the decisions that affect their
lives and doing so in new and better ways”.

Tessa Jowell MP, Minister OF CULTURE

‘Grown up politics for an adult world’ The Guardian 21.11.04

24
Challenging
prohibitionist
myths and
misinformation
There are numerous myths perpetuated by the
defenders of current drug policy, most of them
aimed at supporting the case that prohibition is
effective. Quite simply, it isn’t, as even a cursory
examination of the facts reveals.
Prohibition was intended to eliminate drugs
from the world and has achieved the exact
opposite. On a consistent basis, over more than
two generations, drug production has risen,
drug consumption has risen, drug availability
has risen (whilst prices have fallen), and drug
related health problems have risen. Crucially, in
addition, prohibition has directly created a raft of
new problems associated with criminal markets
locally and narco-states globally. Once an illegal
market has become established, prohibition
has not worked anywhere, ever. Moreover it
has been universally and quite spectacularly
counterproductive on all meaningful indicators.
The myth of prohibition’s effectiveness is
constructed from a series of assertions that can
very easily be demolished:
1. Prohibition reduces availability
This is perhaps the most easily-refuted claim made
for prohibition – so much so that you rarely hear
it anymore. Nevertheless, the goal of reducing
the availability of drugs remains a key pillar of
the UK national drug strategy, and indeed of the
entire UN international drug control apparatus.
Reducing availability remains the sole aim of
supply-side enforcement at the international,
domestic and local levels, absorbing billions of
government spending each year10.
The simplistic rationale for this strategy is that
if drug supply can be stopped then no one will
take drugs and the drug problem will disappear.
However, drug markets are demand-driven,
and supplying them is a staggeringly lucrative
business. Consistently, over several generations,
and in countries across the world, there has been
a clear trend of drug supply and use steadily
increasing. Drugs are cheaper and more available
today than at any time previously, something that
even official analysis from the Home Office, the
ACMD11, and even Tony Blair’s own confidential
report produced for him by his Number 10
Strategy Unit12 does not dispute. Never let anyone
claim that supply side enforcement is effective
without a very robust challenge – the evidence
against this assertion is clear, overwhelming and
acknowledged by all credible sources, official and
independent.
2. Prohibition reduces use / is an
effective deterrent
This myth is entwined within the previous one,
that prohibition reduces drug availability; but it
also depends on the concept of using enforcement
to ‘send out the right message’ on drugs, namely
that they are harmful to health and you shouldn’t
take them. The concept of criminal law as a
deterrent to drug use is absolutely central to
the entire prohibitionist paradigm, and yet the
assumption has little or no evidential foundation.
This is a point that you can raise with great
confidence whenever the deterrent issue arises:
• Drug use has risen faster under prohibition
than at any time in human history.
• International comparisons show no
correlation between the harshness of enforcement
25

“Western governments ... will
lose the war against dealers
unless efforts are switched
to prevention and therapy...
All penalties for drug users
should be dropped ... Making
drug abuse a crime is useless
and even dangerous ... Every
year we seize more and more
drugs and arrest more and
more dealers but at the same
time the quantity available in
our countries still increases...
Police are losing the drug
battle worldwide.”
Raymond Kendall,
Secretary General of INTERPOL
1994
and prevalence of use. The UK, for example, has
one of the harshest regimes and the highest level
of drug use in Europe13.
• Different states within the US and Australia
have very different enforcement regimes for
cannabis possession – from very punitive to de
facto decriminalisation. Comparing the different
states shows there is no correlation between
enforcement and prevalence14.
• In the UK it is mostly Class A drugs, with
the harshest penalties, which have seen the
most dramatic rises in use. Heroin use in the UK
has risen by at least 1000% since 1971, cocaine
use has doubled in the last ten years. Similarly
ecstasy use went from zero to several million pills
a week being consumed in a matter of years in
the late 1980s.
26
• The Home Office has never undertaken any
research to establish the extent of enforcement-
related deterrence, despite it being at the heart
of the Misuse of Drugs Act and all subsequent
policy thinking. The research that does exist
suggests enforcement related deterrence is, at
best, a marginal factor in influencing decisions to
take drugs.
• In his oral evidence to the recent Science and
Technology committee, Professor David Nutt,
Chairman of the ACMD Technical Committee
stated: “I think the evidence base for classification
producing a deterrent is not strong”.
• The Commons Science and Technology
Committee reported that: “We have found no solid
evidence to support the existence of a deterrent
effect, despite the fact that it appears to underpin
the Government’s policy on classification”15.
Lies, Damned Lies,
Statistics, and
look - prohibition
works!
Those attempting to defend the status quo,
usually those working in government or
enforcement, frequently quote statistics that
give the misleading impression that prohibition
is working – when the exact opposite is true. It
is hard to think of another area of social policy
where the waters are so muddied by statistical
chicanery. This sort of misleading evidence,
attempting to dress up failure as success, usually
comes in one of five varieties. They are listed
below, with some ideas on how to effectively
challenge them:
 Why prohibition can never work
A simple economic analysis can usefully demonstrate why absolute prohibition
can never work. Simply put, where high demand exists alongside prohibition, a
criminal profit opportunity is inevitably created. Attempts to interrupt criminal
drug production and supply are doomed as the effect (if successful – which they
very rarely are) will be rising prices; this then makes the market more attractive for
new producers and sellers to enter – which they always do. No matter how many
dealers we arrest or smuggling networks we ‘smash’, the void is always filled by
the queue of willing replacements, hungry for the extraordinary profits prohibition
offers them. Most people will immediately relate to this analysis as it chimes with
the experience within their local community.

1. Localised success international statistics that are not in dispute

(see further information in Chapter 6, p58).
Example: “Cocaine/heroin production in
Colombia/ Afghanistan has fallen this year.” 2. Short term localised success

These stats may well be true (they may not, but
let’s assume they are). However, local production
is completely irrelevant in a global market, as falls
in production in one region will quickly be made up
by rises in another. This pattern has been observed
repeatedly in regional shifts in production of
coca, opium and cannabis – so frequently that
it has become known in official shorthand as
‘the balloon effect’ (if you squeeze a balloon on
one side, it expands on the other). The key point
here is that the trend in global production has
always kept pace with global demand, which has
risen steadily over the past four decades (see:
why prohibition can never work, above). Illegal
drug markets are not confined by geographical
boundaries, and localised successes should not
be allowed to disguise larger scale systematic
failure to control global production. This is the
worst form of cherry-picking. Keep the focus on
the bigger picture – using official national and
Example: “Street drug dealing fell by 10% in the
last 6 months in Birmingham”.
Again, this may well be true – but short-term
changes often mask longer-term trends. They
can also be due to (non-policy related) external
factors, changes in statistical collection or
methodology, and sometimes a marginal change
can be within statistical error parameters. This
sort of cherry picking can also be countered by
bringing the focus back to the bigger picture
statistics on the failure of the policy nationally
and internationally. Be careful to make sure the
criticism is aimed at the policy makers, not those
who are implementing policy (the police do their
job as best they can, it just happens to be an
impossible one). Also remind policy makers that it
is the policy of prohibition that created the crime
and illegal markets in the first place.

27
 3. Process success
Examples: “We have set up a new agency,
appointed a new Tsar, instigated a partnership
project with Jamaican police, invested millions
in a, b and c, announced ambitious new targets
on x, y and z” etc. etc.
These are age-old exercises in distraction. Policy
must be judged on outcomes, not inputs or process
indicators. Challenge policy makers on their record:
the outcomes of the policies they are supporting.
Don’t let them get away with announcing yet
more headline-grabbing new initiatives. Have
these new changes (or “spinitiatives”) made
any difference to the bigger picture on supply,
availability, crime, problematic use? The problems
with prohibition are fundamental and cannot be
solved with superficial tweaks to policy which, at
best, will marginally reduce the harms created by
the policy in the first place, and more likely will
cost government and taxpayers more money for
no benefits.
4. Success relative to previous disaster:
Example: “crack use has fallen since last year”
When compared to a policy as disastrous as
heavy-handed enforcement and large-scale
incarceration, almost any change in intervention
will start to look like progress. A good example
is the improved outcomes from coercing drug-
using offenders into abstinence-based ‘treatment’
as opposed to sending them to jail. The point
here is that imprisonment is so expensive and
counterproductive that literally any alternative
spending would produce better results – burning
the money, giving offenders juggling lessons,
ANYTHING.
The crack example can also illustrate the
important point that drugs come in and out
of fashion largely independently of policy and
law. Prevalence of one drug may fall after an
28
epidemic (e.g. crack use in the US) whilst another
simultaneously rises (in the US this has been
methamphetamine). It is relatively easy for policy
makers to cherry pick some positive statistics and
misleadingly hold them up as representative of
wider progress. Again the way to counter this is
to focus on the longer-term bigger picture – drug
use has risen steadily for decades – especially of
the most problematic drugs. If a ‘stabilisation’ has
been ‘achieved’, this may be sold as a success but
most likely it simply reflects a saturated market
demand. The UK government has for example
been claiming success in the stabilisation of
heroin use in the UK over the past 4 or 5 years – it
needs to be pointed out that usage has stabilised
at the highest level in UK history, the highest
level in Europe, and a level approximately 1000%
higher than in 1971.
5. Success on completely meaningless
indicators
Examples: ‘volume of drug seizures is up’,
‘number of dealers jailed has increased’, ‘ we
have ‘smashed’ record numbers of drug gangs’
etc.
These are measures that reflect the level of
expenditure on enforcement and the size of the
illegal market. They rarely, if ever, translate into
the policy outputs that prohibition is striving for
– i.e. reduced drug production, supply, availability
or use (let alone reduced harm). They sound great
in the media; catching baddies, intercepting nasty
drugs etc – but it gives the misleading impression
of success when in reality the opposite is true.
Again, challenge people using these sorts of
statistics to show what impact they are having
on meaningful indicators and keep to the bigger
picture. Do not let statements from officials such
as talking about ‘x quantities of drugs prevented
from reaching the streets’ go unchallenged. Point
out that such seizures have no impact on overall
supply and that drugs are cheaper and more
available than ever.
Always bring these claims back to the long term
ongoing systematic failure of prohibition and the
relative effectiveness of regulation against key
indicators.
Co-opting the
language of the
drug war
Many arguments that are made in support of
prohibition are easily challenged - prohibition
has historically achieved the exact opposite of
its stated goals, and tough-talking rhetoric rings
very hollow when this is pointed out. When
confronted with an unanswerable factual critique
of prohibition’s failure, its advocates will often
retreat behinds ‘tough’, populist language. This
needs to challenged all the more energetically,
and there is sometimes a place for co-opting
tough-talking populism – especially if it has been
used against you - as a way to undermine the
prohibitionist paradigm and promote evidence-
led public health alternatives.
Some examples; Our policy is “tough on crime” -
• Drug prohibition is not tough on crime – it is
manna from heaven for the Mafia, just as it was
during alcohol prohibition.
• Prohibition is ‘a gangsters charter’ -
abdicating control of a multi billion pound market
in dangerous substances to violent organised
criminal networks and unregulated dealers.
• It is organised crime’s single biggest source
of income, and continues to grow despite the
huge enforcement efforts and hundreds of
billions spent on the drug war over a number of
decades.
“Policies conceived and
enforced to control drug-
related problems and effects
have led to disastrous and
perverse results. Prohibition
is the fundamental principle
of drug policies. If we
consider the results achieved,
there are profound doubts
regarding its effectiveness.
Prohibitionist policies have
been unable to control the
consumption of narcotics;
on the other hand, there
has been an increase of
criminality. There is also a
high mortality rate related
to the quality of substances
and to AIDS or other viral
diseases.”
Jorge Sampiaio,
President of Portugal
Madrid’s El Pais, 07.04.97
• Legally regulating and controlling currently
illegal drugs would collapse the illegal markets
and get the drug smugglers and dealers out of
this business. If we want to really get tough on
the drug dealing gangsters let’s take away their
biggest source of revenue and try to collapse the
illegal drug business for good.
Our policy is ‘sending out the right message’
• Current drug policy sends out an extremely
confused message; one that supports:
- mass criminalisation of the young and
vulnerable
29
 - policies that maximise drug harms such as
drug deaths, overdoses and blood borne
disease transmission
- ignoring the decades of evidence that shows
the policy is a counterproductive failure
- using the blunt tool of criminal justice
enforcement to deal with complex social and
public health problems
- commercial promotion of dangerous legal
drugs
• It can also be pointed out that using criminal
law to send out messages about public health
or private morality is a bizarre strategy that has
been, by any measure, a complete disaster. We
do not imprison people for having unsafe sex,
or other consenting adult risk taking behaviours
such as dangerous sports, or for that matter, legal
drug use. Homosexuality was legalised when
the unacceptable injustice of imposing private
morality with criminal law was exposed.
• Moves toward regulation and control, by a complete lack of control and creates criminal
contrast, send out the message that:
- we are rationally looking at the evidence of
what works
‘’I say legalise drugs because
I want to see less drug abuse,
not more. And I say legalise
drugs because I want to see
the criminals put out of
business.’’
Edward Ellison,
Operational Head of Scotland Yard’s
Drugs Squad,1982- 86
TransFORm PATRON
Daily Mail 10.03.98
30
- we are anti-illegal markets and gangsterism,
genuinely tough on crime
- we think that public health problems should
be dealt with as such
- we care about protecting the young and
vulnerable, and providing appropriate help
where needed
- we are going to show leadership and not
be bullied into continuing with failed and
counterproductive policies just to appease
some international partners/agencies
(primarily the US and UN drug agencies), or
the tabloid press
- (see also ‘morals and messages’ p.52)
‘Drugs are dangerous and must be controlled’
• Exactly right. But the drug war concept
of ‘controlled drugs’ is an absurdity, because
prohibition has abdicated all control of drugs
to gangsters. Control of drugs under prohibition
is demonstrably impossible. In reality it leads to
anarchy.
• Real control means taking the markets back
from criminal networks and bringing them within
the government sphere, where drug production,
supply and use can be regulated, as strictly as is
deemed appropriate for each drug in any given
locale .
• It is precisely because drugs are dangerous
that they need to be regulated and controlled.
• Drugs are too dangerous to be left in the
hands of criminals.
• The more dangerous a drug is, the more
important that it is properly controlled by the
government.
• Drugs are made even more dangerous when
produced and supplied through illegal channels.
“Please can we begin to hear some good sense from No 10 and
the Home Office, and let’s start looking at how drugs can be
legalised and our society can be decriminalised. Let’s recognise
reality and start to reduce the numbers who are cluttering
up our prisons. Let’s start selling drugs through outlets such
as off-licences, where the likelihood of dealing with someone
holding a gun is virtually zero, unlike the street traders of
today. Let’s admit that we are getting it wrong, by allowing
our fear and prejudice against certain drugs to drive us to
pursue wrongheaded policies which only produce damaging
social results.”

Mo Mowlam,
former MP, cabinet minister from 1997-2001,
responsible for the Government’s drugs policy from 1999-2001.
“Better drugs laws will cut gun crime -
Let’s recognise reality and start selling the stuff at off-licences”
The Guardian 09.01.03

31
 4. Making the case for
regulated markets
Although it is important to expose the shortcomings of current
drug policy, no amount of devastating critique of prohibition will
achieve very much unless a convincing case for an alternative
policy is made. The big problem with the so-called ‘legalisation
lobby’ in the past is that brilliant critique has tended to be
followed with a one word solution – ‘legalisation’. This chapter
considers how to advocate clearly what the replacement for
prohibition will look like, and the principles by which such
policy alternatives will be developed and implemented. The next
chapter considers a number of the most common concerns raised
about a post-prohibition world, and how these concerns can be
addressed.

“No one is asking for some

free-for-all for drugs. I
want drugs to be controlled
and regulated, but we do
not want to allow what has
happened over the past thirty
years to continue, whereby, in
an illegal market, criminals
– irresponsible people – sell
poisoned drugs that kill
young people”

Paul Flynn MP

32
FROM legalisation Be clear about
to regulation what regulated
markets are, and
prohibition needs to be clearly and confidently what they are not
The alternative to the current system of drug
specified. Just saying ‘legalisation’ is inadequate
- and indeed problematic, as the term comes
with a lot of baggage. For many people it is
associated with either ‘hippies and pot-heads’,
specific political ideologies (usually libertarianism
or liberalism) that condone the use of drugs, or
suggests a ‘surrender’ in the drug war that would
leave us with some sort of un-policed ‘free for all’.
Using the term in isolation creates a vacuum that
will be filled by such misconceptions (which are
regularly promoted by prohibition’s advocates and
political beneficiaries16)– frequently of the ‘heroin
would be available in sweet shops’ variety.
In actuality the term ‘legalisation’ describes a
process (rather like ‘abolition’)- in this case the
process of something currently illegal being made
legal – rather than an end point or goal in itself.
It gives no indication what the policy replacing
prohibition would look like. For this reason it is
very important that the term is clarified as soon
and often as possible.
Explain what you mean by ‘legalisation’ at
the earliest opportunity and try to talk about
‘regulation and control’ as often as possible.
There is no harm in repeating the phrase – in
fact we would encourage it. Avoiding the term
‘legalisation’ altogether is no bad thing, but
if it is unavoidable, either use it in the phrase
‘legalisation and regulation’ or make it clear
it is a process not an end point: ‘legalisation is
necessary to move from prohibition to legally
regulated markets’. A useful alternative is to
talk about ‘moves towards legal regulation and
control’, or ‘legally regulated drug markets’ .
Once you have clarified that your understanding
of ‘legalisation’ is very specifically ‘regulation
and control’, whenever possible it is worth
going further to explain in very clear terms
more precisely what you are proposing and the
principles on which future policy developments
would be based.
• Some activities and products would remain
prohibited as part of the regulatory framework.
This is hugely important point to make as
it reinforces the idea of control, and moves
perceptions away from the misconceptions of
‘legalisation’ and libertarian free markets. Activities
that would remain prohibited would include, for
example, underage sales, consumption in public,
unlicensed sales, advertising and so on. Similarly,
supply of certain particularly potent or high risk
preparations of some drugs would also remain
prohibited. All psychoactive drugs are potentially
dangerous substances that should be subject
to tight legal and social regulations. We should
learn the lessons from tobacco and alcohol (see
– ‘talking about… alcohol and tobacco’ p.37). The
level of enforcement, and associated penalties
for activities that remain prohibited, would be
determined by legislation, police force or local
licensing body as appropriate. Discussing the
role of ‘prohibitions’ post legalisation may be a
bit confusing; to avoid this, talk about replacing
‘absolute prohibition’ or ‘the war on drugs’ with
‘a system of strict legal regulation and control in
which some activities remain prohibited’.
33
 “Only legalising the most widely used drugs, subjecting them to strict
quality assessment and making them available through controlled outlets,
will allow people to make intelligent choices.

The most odious tyrannies are those that seek to impose unreal values
on society. Drugs policy has become such a tyranny. The hard truth is
that millions of people want the freedom to use drugs, and no policy of
prohibition is going to stop them. Isn’t it time government accepted this fact,
and allowed them to use drugs more safely and at less risk to others?”

Professor John Gray,

Professor of European thought at the London School of Economics
‘Injecting some sense - Millions of people want to use drugs and prohibition will not stop them’
The Guardian 10.07.01

• Make it clear you are not talking about a
free market that would give carte blanche to
multinationals and pharmaceutical companies
to market or promote recreational drugs (see
‘concerns about legalisation/regulation’ p.46).
Producers would be strictly regulated, particularly
with regard to advertising, marketing, health
warnings and packaging.
- Licensed sales (as with off licenses or
tobacconists) with various available tiers of
licensing conditions that could be applied as
appropriate
- Licensed premises (pubs or Dutch style
coffee-shops) again, with variable licensing
conditions.

• Different regulatory regimes would be put in
place for different drugs in different locations.
The strictness of regulation for different drugs (or
different preparations of a given drug) would be
determined by the comparative risks associated
with their production, supply and use.
- Unlicensed sales for low risk drugs – like
coffee
(for more discussion of regulatory models see the
Transform, KCBA and HOBC reports detailed in
Chapter 6, p.59).

• Regulatory regimes would be based
on existing models (something people can
immediately understand) including;
- Medical prescription (possibly involving
supervised use) for the most risky drugs (e.g.
injectable heroin – the legal framework for
which already exists in practice)
- Over the counter pharmacy sales – from
qualified pharmacists (possibly with additional
training for vending recreational drugs)
• The type of regulation for each drug would
be based on evidence of what works. Unlike the
inflexible straitjacket of prohibition, a regulatory
regime could develop a range of responses to
the risks that different drugs present. Different
models would be piloted and tested, with policy
development and implementation based on
evidence of effectiveness. Regulatory frameworks
could be changed and updated in response to
changing circumstances.

34
• Implementation would be phased and based
on the precautionary principle. Regulated models
would not be rolled out for all drugs overnight.
It is likely that certain drugs would be legalised
and regulated first (probably cannabis) and other
drugs phased in over a number of years. Initially
the default position would be to err on the side of
stricter regulation, which could then be relaxed
only if evidence suggested that would be more
effective.
• Internationally, this is about returning
democratic freedoms to sovereign states. Under
this new system no country is going to be bullied
into legalising and regulating any drug (in
contrast to the bullying to maintain prohibition
that many experience now). The changes we are
seeking at the international level would change
the UN legal system to allow the freedom of
individual states to democratically decide on
any move towards regulated drug markets if
they determined that was the best way forward
for them. It would merely put regulatory policy
options back in the frame. If certain nation states
(those, perhaps, where alcohol is still prohibited)
wished to maintain absolute prohibition, that
decision would remain their sovereign right.
Re-establishing
the primacy of a
public health /
harm reduction
approach
Once the meaning of control and regulation
is made clear, it becomes much easier to grasp
that the response to illegal drugs need not be
any different to our current response to legal
drugs (see ‘fault-lines within existing policy’
p.15), or for that matter any other issue in the
public health arena. Making the case for a public
health-led response is crucial to getting the
reform message across. It is a concept people
are familiar with and understand (in relation to,
for example, tobacco policy), and it helps direct
the emphasis of the discourse towards evidence-
based policy making and harm reduction – and
away from the ideological dream of achieving a
‘drug free society’.
• The fact that certain drugs are currently dealt
with via the criminal justice system is a quirk of
the history of prohibition, and not the conclusion
of any kind of rational analysis or evaluation.
Drugs, quite simply, are primarily a public heath
issue and should be dealt with as such by the
relevant public health agencies (see principles of
drug policy – p.20).
• Prohibition not only undermines public
health efforts to reduce drug harm (by diverting
budgets to enforcement and stigmatising the
most vulnerable problem users with criminality)
it actually increases harms associated with use by
encouraging high risk behaviours (e.g. injecting/
sharing needles), stifles access to accurate safety
information, and ensures that dangerous drugs
are of unknown strength and purity.
• Public health interventions have beeen shown
to be effective (e.g. needle exchanges, treatment
programmes, controls on tobacco advertising),
criminal justice interventions generally have not.
• Illegal drugs are unique in the public health
arena in attempting to use criminal law as the
primary method of educating the public. We have
a whole range of alternative methods for public
health education in schools, workplaces, public
spaces, media and the home that can be shown
35
 “the current arrangements to
control the supply of illegal
drugs should be reviewed
to determine whether any
cost-effective and politically
acceptable measures can
be taken to reduce their
availability to young people”
The ADVISORY COUNCIL
ON THE MISUSE OF DRUGS
recommendation from ‘Pathways to
Problems’ report 14.09.06
to be more effective (and don’t involve making
criminals out of a third of the country).
If the case for a public health-led response can be
made effectively, it can only lead in one direction
– away from ideological prohibition and towards
evidence based regulation and control. Once you
have people thinking along these lines you are
well on the way to winning them over.
You can be
anti-drug and
pro-reform
As has been discussed elsewhere in the guide
(p.19), the way the drugs debate has historically
been framed often leads to pro-reform positions
being confused with (or misrepresented as) being
‘pro-drug’ or somehow condoning, encouraging
or giving approval for drug use generally.
Without rehashing the same material covered
elsewhere, it is vital to emphasise that support for
principled, phased, evidence led reform of failed
drug legislation is in no way incompatible with a
36
strong anti-drug message, or the moral view that
a drug-free lifestyle is to be encouraged.
It is often useful to make this point explicitly. It
defuses potential accusations about ‘sending
out the wrong message’, especially if you are
crystal clear about your message on drug use /
misuse, and the mechanisms by which you would
like to see that message ‘sent out’ (i.e. through
proven public education channels, rather than
discredited criminal justice ones). In many respects
prohibition is an active obstacle to effective
public health messages, directing resources away
from education and prevention into enforcement,
whilst simultaneously alienating young people
and fostering distrust of government messages
on drugs through blanket criminalisation. To
defend prohibition is to send far more confusing
messages: defending organised crime’s biggest
business, and guaranteeing that the harm caused
by drugs will be maximised.
Keeping the
focus on the
international
dimension
It is important to remember that how we respond
to the drugs issue in the UK has a direct impact
on the rest of the world. It is a much overlooked
fact in the drugs debate that the impact of our
domestic policies go way beyond British shores.
We have to be wary of not slipping into a
parochial perspective on this issue.
• Illegal production of drugs consumed in
the West now form a significant proportion
of the economies in key producer and transit
countries such as Afghanistan, Colombia and
Jamaica. The vast quantities of illegal profits
accruing to violent gangsters and criminal cartels
are a significant factor undermining the social,
economic and political stability of communities
and entire nations across the globe.
• Illegal drug profits are used to corrupt
officials at all levels of politics: judiciary, police
and military.
• Illegal drug profits are helping to fund and
arm paramilitary groups, guerrilla groups, and
terrorist organisations across the globe, fuelling
and escalating violence in already unstable
conflict zones.
around the world. And indeed every time the
question of drug policy reform has been put to
the American people – usually in the form of
state propositions to decriminalise cannabis for
medical use – they have supported it, only to be
overruled by their federal government. It is hard
to ignore the symmetry between the US’s heavy-
handed global policing and the bullying tactics
to which it increasingly has to resort to maintain
global drug prohibition; but it is important to
remember that the US has a vital role to play
in global reform and needs to be engaged with
the same intelligence and sensitivity as other key
audiences.

These problems are a direct consequence of the

policy of prohibition. Blaming drugs or drug
Talking about...
users is just a distraction, as the lack of such
problems associated with alcohol and tobacco
Alcohol and
demonstrates.
Tobacco
Just as prohibition is enshrined in international
law, so the reform movement must engage in
There are many important lessons for us to
the international arena to tackle the challenges
draw from the successes and failures with
presented by the UN drug conventions and the
legal regulation of alcohol and tobacco. These
agencies that oversee them. The international
will inevitably crop up and it is useful to have
consensus is heavily underpinned by the USA,
a grasp of the key arguments so that you can
which played the leading role in developing
turn any mention of currently legal drugs to
international drug prohibition in the 1950’s
your advantage. (see also: The fault lines within
and whose institutions and funding still remain
current policy, p.15).
its most powerful bulwark. Challenging US
hegemony of the UN drug agencies remains key
to unlocking the rigid framework of international “Prohibition is no more a
prohibition. viable policy in Britain today
than it proved to be
We need to be wary of being labelled with in America during the 1920s
‘anti-Americanism’ by making it clear that it is and 1930s.”
the USA’s drug policies we are critical of, not
the country itself or its people. It is also worth RSA report
highlighting that there is a vibrant and growing ‘Drugs: Facing Facts” 2007

domestic US-based reform movement for you to

draw upon, part of a wider coalition of reform-
minded organisations and individuals operating

37
 Both tobacco and alcohol are often talked of as
if they are not ‘real drugs’ - or sometimes not
drugs at all, underlined by the frequent use of
daft phrases such as ‘alcohol and drugs’, which
is about as logical as saying ‘orange juice and
drinks’ or ‘sandals and footwear’. Obviously both
alcohol and tobacco are powerful psychoactive
drugs; potentially highly toxic, addictive and
associated with high mortality rates. Were they to
be classified under the current policy regime (the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) they would certainly
be class A or B. Do not hesitate to point this fact
out17.
“it is salutary to see that alcohol
and tobacco-the most widely used
unclassified substances-would have
harm ratings comparable with class
A and B illegal drugs, respectively.”
David Nutt, Leslie King,
William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore,
The Lancet, March 2007
However, for reasons that have no bearing on any
scientific assessment of actual risk, harmfulness
or danger, tobacco and alcohol are both legally
produced, supplied and consumed, albeit within
a regulatory framework within which some
prohibitions remain (failings of this system
are discussed below). The distinction between
legal and illegal drugs is not justifiable under
any scientific, logical or public health criteria
and is purely an artefact of quirks in our social
and political history. The argument that ‘it’s not
fair’ people are allowed to use one drug and
not another is a strong one – but it needs to be
deployed carefully (see ‘Talking about…personal
rights’ p.43).
For all the health and social problems associated
with alcohol and tobacco use, the key difference
38
with illegal drugs is on the production and
supply side. Alcohol and tobacco are produced
under licence and under the law, are liable to
taxation, regulation and inspection, alcohol is
sold in licensed shops and premises (tobacco
is unlicensed but subject to age of purchaser
controls), tobacco products (and soon alcohol
products) provide information on strength and
health warnings on the packaging. We have none
of the criminal market problems that we have for
currently illegal drugs (see tobacco notes below
re: illicit smuggling).
House of commons
branded wiskey
It is entirely consistent to call for more regulation
of alcohol and tobacco as well as the legalisation
and regulation of currently illegal drugs. This is
about applying the same evidence-led public
health and harm reduction principles to all drugs,
and developing the optimum level of regulation
for each.
Tobacco
• The high prevalence of tobacco use is due to
a number of factors including its long history of
use, its aggressive promotion as an aspirational
lifestyle product over the last century, and the
nature of nicotine intoxication that enables
people to function normally at the same time as
being addicted, lending itself to long-term high-
frequency use.
• Increasingly effective regulation of tobacco
(including recent bans on advertising and
smoking in public spaces) and, more importantly,
growing public understanding of the negative
health consequences of smoking backed up with
comparatively well funded health education
campaigns on the risks of smoking - have all led
to a steady reduction in smoking over the past
three decades. Admittedly this was from a very
high point in the post war era, before which
advertising was aggressive and unfettered, and
the medical consequences of smoking poorly
understood. Nevertheless, it does illustrate how
prevalence of a legal drug can change positively in
response to sensible regulation and public health
education. There is clearly some distance to go:
tobacco sales remain effectively unlicensed and
key concepts in tobacco harm reduction (such as
smokeless tobacco products) have yet to trouble
UK policy makers.
• The illegal market in smuggled tobacco is the
direct result of taxation policy – specifically the
large international differentials in tobacco tax that
create a huge profit opportunity for smugglers.
For example, tax rates on tobacco vary from zero
percent in Andorra, to several hundred percent
in the UK – a far greater range than almost any
other mass consumer product. If tobacco taxes
were reduced domestically, the international
differential and profit opportunity in smuggling
and illicit sales would fall accordingly; where
there is no tobacco tax there are no smuggled
imports or illicit sales. Higher taxes, however,
mean higher prices which can effectively dissuade
potential new users and encourage existing
users to quit, just as falling prices can have the
opposite effect. The government has the difficult
task of using taxation policy to balance these two
conflicting needs (dissuading use / undermining
illegal activity). Crucially, though, because
tobacco is legal and regulated, governments are
in a position of power to intervene on price, an
impossibility with illegal drugs that are entirely at
the whim of supply and demand in an unregulated
criminal market. It is also worth noting that most
“The prestige of government
has undoubtedly been lowered
considerably by the prohibition law.
For nothing is more destructive of
respect for the government and the
law of the land than passing laws
which cannot be enforced. It is an
open secret that the dangerous
increase of crime in this country is
closely connected with this.”
Professor Albert Einstein,
Nobel Laureate (physics)
My First Impression of the U.S.A.’, 1921
(quote in reference to US alcohol prohibition)
smuggled tobacco is at least legally produced in
the first instance.
• It is worth noting that the profit margins
on illegal drugs are so high, often running to
1000% or more, that there is plenty of room
for manoeuvre for policy makers regarding tax
and price control interventions. Prohibition has
turned heroin and cocaine – essentially low
value processed agricultural products - into
illicit commodities literally worth more than
their weight in gold. Even with high taxes, legally
supplied drugs would still dramatically undercut
current illicit markets.
Alcohol
• Prevalence of alcohol use is high (relative
to illegal drugs) because it is the oldest and
most culturally established of all drugs, and its
use is deeply embedded into a wide range of
pleasurable and sociable contexts. The prevalence
of problematic alcohol use and risky patterns of
consumption (heavy, frequent or binge drinking)
along with related crime and disorder problems
are getting worse (in the UK) partly because of
social and cultural changes and partly due to
poor regulation of supply and a lack of effective
public health education.
39

“With nearly one in five
Britons aged 20 to 24 now
using cannabis regularly, it’s
clear that the current law
is useless as a deterrent and
serves only to criminalise
otherwise law-abiding people
while eating up vast amounts
of police time.”
New Scientist magazine, Editorial 03.10.02
• Alcohol can still be advertised with few
restrictions, and is often directly marketed
to young people and children through sport
sponsorship such as Premiership football and
Formula 1 racing. Sums of money spent on
public health education are eclipsed by spending
on advertising and promotion. New alcohol
products are being developed and marketed
(such as ‘alcopops’) that actively target younger
emerging markets and encourage risky patterns
of use, despite implausible claims to the contrary
from the alcohol industry.
• If problematic alcohol use is to be tackled
there must be far stricter controls over
advertising, marketing and promotion - starting
with minimum prices and a ban on sports and
youth events sponsorship, perhaps leading to
an outright advertising ban, similar to that on
tobacco. Far greater investment must be made in
effective targeted health education (something
the Government’s own appointed expert advisors
agree with11). These are both policies that would
surely apply to any legalised and regulated drug
in the future. We will never have to suffer Cocaine
Premiership Football or Ecstasy World Snooker.
• With alcohol we have a unique and
unambiguous example of where prohibition was
40
tried (in the US 1920-1933) failed horribly (for
the same reasons drug prohibition is failing now)
and was ultimately repealed.
Talking about...
cannabis
Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug by a
large margin, and has correspondingly dominated
the debate on drug law reform for decades.
Levels of support for cannabis decriminalisation/
legalisation have risen from around 15% in the
1980s to consistently over 50% today7, despite a
large scale domestic and international propaganda
effort to hype the drug’s undoubted potential
dangers: this is an extremely positive precedent
for the drug reform movement as a whole. What
is clear is that exposure to informed debate on
the drugs issue invariably pushes opinion away
from prohibition and towards reform.
However, there are problems with how the
cannabis debate has been handled historically
that mean caution needs to be taken when
approaching it.
• Saying cannabis should be legalised and
regulated ‘because it’s safe’ is neither true nor
useful. Like all drugs cannabis has risks and
even if they are relatively low, a minority of
vulnerable users do run into real problems with
it. Claiming otherwise is every bit as foolish and
unscientific as some of the more outlandish
‘reefer madness’ claims made by advocates of
its continued prohibition. This line of argument
also undermines the wider argument for drug
law reform; It is because drugs are dangerous /
risky that they need to be properly regulated. You
can go further to say that the more dangerous
a drug is the more imperative it becomes to
legally regulate it, and take it out of the hands of
criminals.
• In this sense the cannabis debate dominates
the wider drugs debate in a way that grossly
overstates its importance, and it has become
a distraction from more important issues.
The essentially trivial dispute over cannabis
reclassification hogged media and parliamentary
debate for nearly two years – during which time
more substantive debates on how to address the
dramatic failings of the drug strategy, and how it
was fuelling crime, prison overcrowding and the
wider crisis in the criminal justice system, were
largely overlooked. When the issue of cannabis
comes up, try to move the debate to policy on all
drugs.
get people thinking about the wider issues of drug
law reform, especially since there is a substantial
constituency of people who support legalisation
of cannabis but not other drugs. Given that
exactly the same arguments apply – reducing
harms and protecting freedoms of individuals – it
is easy to challenge the substantial ‘cannabis yes
– but not the rest’ audience in a way that forces
them to think about the bigger picture. Cannabis
is also unique in that in many countries positive
reform is already underway. This provides useful
debating resource where such policies can be
shown to be effective, particularly in the case of
Holland, where the drug is de facto decriminalised,
regulated and tolerated.

• The debate around recreational cannabis use Talking about...

often gets entangled with the debate around
its medical use, and occasionally with the
commercial/industrial use of the hemp plant.
Since the arguments for the recreational, medical
and industrial uses of the plant are very different,
they are not usefully combined - try to keep them
separate. The fact cannabis (or its extracts) can be
a useful medicine, for example, doesn’t have the
slightest relevance to its recreational risk profile.
Remember that we are concerned here with the
drug’s recreational use only.
None of this is to say that you shouldn’t discuss
the cannabis issue at all: it will invariably come
up, so it is good to be prepared. It can be useful to
Crack Cocaine
‘OK – but what about Crack?’ : it crops up all the
time. It’s an understandable question – how do
we deal sensibly with the drug with the worst
reputation for chaos and danger? The answer, as
elsewhere, is to begin by moving beyond the denial
stage: the fantasy that this is a problem that can
be eradicated with criminal justice enforcement.
However distasteful, we need to accept the reality
that some people use crack; then we need to
consider the evidence of what interventions are
going to be effective at reducing the harm crack
causes to users and the wider community.

“We support the Runciman Inquiry’s recommendations that “the possession of cannabis
should not be an imprisonable offence.” We also wish to support some of the cogent
argument of Peter Lilley MP…where he says that inebriation is regarded as a sin
because it can lead to more serious wrongdoing. Alcohol inebriation has long been
associated with violence in some cases, and it is possible that cannabis abuse could
sometimes have harmful effects. However that is a matter for personal responsibility,
guided by moral imperatives. Abuse, which is a sin, is not necessarily a crime”.

Church of England Board for Social Responsibility

written submission to the Home Affairs Select Committee 2001

41

“if it were absolutely
established that there was
a higher addiction rate with
crack, legalization could,
paradoxically, diminish its
use. This is so because if
cocaine were reduced to
the same price as crack, the
abuser, acknowledging the
higher rate of addiction,
might forgo the more
intensive high of crack,
opting for the slower high
of cocaine. Crack was
introduced years ago as
offering an alluring new
psycho active experience. But
its special hold on the ghetto
is the result of its price.
Remember that—on another
front—we know that 120-
proof alcohol doesn’t sell as
readily as 86 proof, not by a
long shot, even though the
higher the proof, the faster
the psychological effect that
alcohol users are seeking.”
Professor Michael Gazzaniga
Professor of Psychiatry at Dartmouth
Medical School, editor-in-chief of the
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
the National Review February 05.02.90
42
The response must be public health led
and based on harm reduction principles
Public health interventions are far harder for
crack than for heroin. While even the most chaotic
heroin users will respond to regular prescriptions
that satisfy their needs, crack users will often
binge frequently and uncontrollably. While
heroin users may accept substitute prescriptions
such as methadone, no such alternatives for
crack exist (although some have been suggested
and research continues, including prescribing of
substitute stimulants and development of less
potent, slower releasing cocaine preparations).
New challenges are emerging as patterns of drug
use shift and change – this is a rapidly evolving
field.
The simplest option would be for powder
cocaine to be sold or prescribed from specialist
pharmacy outlets under certain strict conditions,
(prescribing cocaine is already possible in the
UK, so no change in the law would be required
- although prescribing guidelines would need
updating).
Since making smokable crack cocaine from
powder cocaine is a simple kitchen procedure, and
one that is impossible to prevent, so dedicated
crack users may continue to procure it, even if it
were not directly available. Ultimately, however,
the pragmatic reality remains that if someone is
determined enough to use crack it is preferable
that they have a supply of known strength and
purity and do not have to commit crimes against
others or prostitute themselves as a means to
buying it.
It is also well established from the experience with
heroin prescribing that bringing problem users
into contact with services through a prescription
regime increases the likelihood that they will use
those services, enter treatment or rehab, and
move away from problematic use altogether.
 “Persisting in our current policies will only result in more drug abuse,
more empowerment of drug markets and criminals, and more disease and
suffering. Too often those who call for open debate, rigorous analysis of
current policies, and serious consideration of alternatives are accused of
“surrendering.” But the true surrender is when fear and inertia combine to
shut off debate, suppress critical analysis, and dismiss all alternatives to
current policies. Mr. Secretary General, we appeal to you to initiate a truly
open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control
policies - one in which fear, prejudice and punitive prohibitions yield to
common sense, science, public health and human rights.”

FROM 1998 LETTER TO KOFI ANNAN

SIGNED BY OVER 500 PROMIENT ACADEMICS, SCIENTISTS AND POLITICAL LEADERS
INCLUDING:
PROFESSOR Colin Blakemore
President, British Association for the Advancement of science
ROWAN WILLIAMS,
ARCHBISHOP CANTERBURY (then Bishop Of MONMOTH)

Problem crack users are at the hard end of chaotic
drug use and cause a disproportionate amount of
secondary harms to society. There is no benefit in
further criminalising and demonising them when
what is clearly required is a concerted public
health response combined with appropriate
social support.
‘What about crack?’ is also a question that
highlights the role of prohibition in the
emergence of the ‘crack epidemic’. The
unregulated economics of illegal markets under
prohibition always tend to cause concentration
of available drug preparations which are more
profitable per unit weight. Just as under alcohol
prohibition the trade in beer gave way to more
concentrated, profitable and dangerous spirits,
the same pattern has been observed over the past
century with opiates – from opium (smoked or in
drinkable preparations) to injectable heroin, and
more recently with the cannabis market being
increasingly saturated with more potent varieties.
With coca-based products the transformation
has been dramatic. Before its prohibition, the
common forms of cocaine use were low-risk coca
leaf chewing and coca-based drinks (tea and
wine). It was prohibition that brought cocaine
powder onto the streets in the first place, and
finally produced high-risk smokable crack18. We
have prohibition to thank for crack: a powerful
reason for ending it before it generates new and
even more dangerous drugs
The market for cocaine is currently defined
by the fact that only the strongest and most
dangerous forms of the drug are available. If
less potent preparations were available, demand
would be likely to move away from the more
risky preparations, just as patterns of alcohol
use shifted back towards beers and wines
when US alcohol prohibition was repealed. In
the case of crack cocaine in the UK, the long-
established illegal heroin market created a ready
made distribution network and receptive user
base for the new product. The heroin and crack
markets have meshed within a comparatively
short period (most crack users are also heroin
users). If these illegal networks were dismantled
through the introduction of regulated supply, we
would dramatically reduce the possibility for the
next new drug ‘epidemic’, meth-amphetamine
perhaps, to take hold.

43
 Talking abouT...
is rarely useful to push this part of the reform
argument. Respond appropriately if it is raised

Personal Rights
but, unless absolutely necessary, don’t bother
raising it unless you have an obviously receptive
audience.
The arguments for the personal right to use drugs
are strong. They are based on the principles of If this argument is going to make any real
John Stuart Mill that underpin most modern progress in the short term it will be in the courts,
lawmaking: that consenting adults should be free when unjust prosecutions or laws are challenged
to engage in whatever behaviour they wish as under human rights legislation, as has already
long as it does not harm others, and that acting begun to happen in mainland Europe.
in order to prevent the individual from harming
themselves is not legitimate. Indeed, there are
no comparable laws in the UK against self-harm,
up to and including the legalisation of suicide in “Liberty considers that
1961. People are free to indulge in all manner of the current policy
risky and harmful activities including dangerous of criminalisation of
sports, unsafe sex, and of course legal drug use possession, use and supply
including alcohol and tobacco (responsible for of drugs represents serious
tens of thousands of deaths each year). Drug infringements into civil
laws that criminalise personal use (technically, liberties that are unjustified.
possession for personal use) are significantly at Liberty therefore calls for
odds with the law as it applies to comparable the general decriminalisation
personal choices. They are also entirely different of possession, use and supply
to laws that, rightly, criminalise harming others and supply of all drugs, for
such as rape, theft, murder etc. Do highlight this the regime for control of
obvious distinction if you hear the somewhat drugs to be replaced by a
desperate prohibitionist argument along the lines civil mechanism of control,
of: “well why not legalise murder?” and for there to be right of
access to the lawful supply
Liberty are among the civil rights groups who of drugs.”
agree with this and have a specific policy calling
for an end to total prohibition. National Council
for Civil Liberties
Unfortunately, whilst this argument may carry From written submission to the
Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry
weight intellectually, it carries very little politically ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: is it
or with public opinion. Policy makers, perhaps Working?’ 2001
understandably with so many other battles to
fight, are simply not going to risk political capital
campaigning for the right to take drugs. Similarly,
public opinion is unlikely to be won over rapidly
on this one, with the media focusing almost
exclusively on the negative aspects of drug
use. So realistically, in the short term at least, it

44
 “The role of government should be to prevent
the most chaotic drug users from harming
others – by robbing or by driving while drugged,
for instance – and to regulate drug markets to
ensure minimum quality and safe distribution.
The first task is hard if law enforcers are
preoccupied with stopping all drug use; the
second, impossible as long as drugs are illegal.”

The Economist
editorial. From Issue entitled: ‘Time to legalise all drugs’ 28.06.01

45
 5. Concerns about moves
towards legally
regulated markets
This section of the guide provides the basic analysis you will
need to respond to the most commonly raised concerns about
legalisation and regulation.

Many of these concerns are stressed repeatedly by those who

seek to maintain prohibition and undermine the reform movement.
So whilst it is important to respect and respond sensibly to
legitimate concerns as a way of finding common ground, you
may also have to battle against cynical attempts to discredit you
from those intent on maintaining the fault lines in the debate.
Consider the motivations of those who raise these concerns, and
be particularly wary – and, when necessary, merciless - when it
is a politician defending a party line or using a smokescreen to
protect the status quo from scrutiny.

46
1. WILL
prevalence
of use RISE?
Prohibitionists maintain at least a rhetorical
commitment to the elimination of drugs from
society and it is in this context that measurements
of prevalence of use have assumed huge
importance in the policy reform debate. For
opponents of reform, the spectre of rising use
following any moves toward legally regulated
production and supply is the key argument which
comes up again and again. Unfortunately the
response to it, whilst coherent, is a tricky one to
boil down into a simple sound bite, essentially
because the point being made is ‘well, it’s a
lot more complicated than that’ – which, as it
happens, is probably your best starting point.
This is a tricky issue and may require a detailed
response (offered below), but if you absolutely
have to be concise, the basic points of the
response are that:
• The impact of policy and law on levels of
use is marginal (in some cases even contributing
to increases) – cultural and socio-economic
variables are far more important. Prohibition has
demonstrably failed to prevent the dramatic rise
in drug use and drug harms over the past four
decades.
• Drug use may both rise and fall post
prohibition – there will be a range of factors at
play, and we will certainly see different impacts
with different drugs, different populations of
users and different locations
• What is absolutely certain is that overall
harm associated with drugs will fall – the risks
associated with drug use will decrease sharply
and society will be far better placed to address
problematic drug use, and its underlying causes
• Reducing drug related harm is more important
than the futile pursuit of a drug free society
The UK national drugs strategy states that “...
we will prevent young people from using drugs
by maintaining prohibition which deters use...”.
Similarly The Home Office states that “Drugs
are controlled because of their harm potential
and the law and its sanctions help to limit
experimentation”. This understanding is reflected
in much of the popular political and media
opposition to reforms with frequent references,
most recently witnessed during the cannabis
reclassification debate, to ‘giving the green light
to drug use’ or ‘sending out the wrong message’.
As so often in the drugs debate, these simple
arguments conceal more complex and important
ones and the apparent fault line here is not nearly
as clear cut as it may initially seem:
• The idea that drug use will rise post-
prohibition is built on guesswork and the very
“risk factors -particularly
relating to deprivation -are the
prime determinant of initiation
into problematic drug use;
price and availability play a
secondary role”
“there is no causal relationship
between availability and
incidence; indeed, prices and
incidence often fall or rise at
the same time”
No. 10 Strategy Unit Drugs Project
Phase 2 Report: “Diagnosis and
Recommendations”2003
47
 flimsy premise that prohibition is an effective
deterrent to use. Research into drug taking
motivations, specifically why people choose not to
take drugs, and the extent of any deterrent effect
from law enforcement, is extremely scant. The
Home Office has never undertaken or presented
any substantial evidence in support of the alleged
deterrent effect that is at the heart of UK drug
policy – even when it has been specifically and
repeatedly challenged on this issue by various
parliamentary select committees. From the little
we do have, it appears the extent and impact
of enforcement related deterrence is at best
marginal, and will vary greatly between different
drugs and drug using groups. (see also: - Myths
about prohibition: the criminal justice system is
an effective deterrent p.25).
• In particular there is no evidence to
demonstrate a deterrent effect amongst
problematic or dependent users of heroin and
cocaine, the Government’s stated primary focus
of its drug policy efforts.
• There are a large number of variables
that affect drug-taking decisions other
than enforcement related deterrence. These
significantly include socioeconomic variables,
“In the face of all the
evidence, thorough research
into the possibility of
legalisation is the only
intelligent thing to do.”
Professor Sheila Bird
Principal Statistician at the Medical
Research Council Biostatistics Unit.
Cambridge Evening News March 2006
48
fashion, culture and music, advertising,
availability, price and perception of risk. Post-
prohibition there will be effects that may
increase use (removal of enforcement deterrence,
lower price, easier availability, better quality), as
well as effects that may lower use (removal of
‘underground glamour’, more medicalisation of
addicts, removal of dealers targeting new users,
increased investment in treatment, education
and social regeneration). The net effect of
these conflicting pressures is unclear and will
vary significantly between different drugs and
different drug using populations.
• Headline figures of reported use give no
indication of the intensity or frequency of use,
and specifically do not measure problematic use
or levels of harm associated with use. A rise in
prevalence does not necessarily equate to a rise
in overall harm, and could in theory coincide with
a fall in the prevalence of problematic use and
overall harm.
• A report commissioned by Tony Blair from
the Number 10 Strategy Unit concluded that
“There is no causal relationship between drug
availability and incidence [of use] ” and “Supply-
side interventions have a limited role to play in
reducing harm - initiation into problematic drug
use is not driven by changes in availability or
price” 12.
It is also important to acknowledge how the
nature of drug use would change under a legally
regulated system that we believe would mean
that, even if there were an increase in use, there
would be a decrease in overall harm:
• Drugs would be safer, being of known and
guaranteed strength and purity and having health
and safety information, warnings and guidance
on packaging or available at point of sale.
• Prohibition has pushed users towards ever
more concentrated and profitable forms of
certain drugs (from opium to heroin, and from
coca leaf to coca drinks to cocaine to crack). A
post prohibition era is likely to witness a shift
back towards safer, less concentrated options.
By way of example, following the end of alcohol
prohibition in the US consumption patterns
moved away from spirits back to beers and wines
(see ‘talking about .....Alcohol and Tobacco? p.37
and ‘Talking about …..crack? p.41)
Prevalence of use is only one of a number of
health indicators (and not an especially useful
one) and health is only one of a number of policy
areas that need to be evaluated.
Policy should seek to manage drug use so as to
minimise the harm drugs cause, both to drug
users and the wider community. This requires that
we redefine ‘the drug problem’ as more than just
‘people use drugs’. Measuring the effectiveness
of drug policy requires a far broader range of
indicators that include public health, crime,
civil rights, community safety and international
development and conflict.
2. Vulnerable
groups: what
about the kids?
After ‘drug use would go up’, the next most
frequently voiced concern about the moves
towards legally regulated drugs is best summarised
as ‘but what about the kids?’. For parents and
carers in particular it is entirely understandable
that there are real fears about the impact of drug
law reform on the most vulnerable in society,
children and young people, as well as people with
mental health problems, the homeless and other
socially excluded groups.
“The King County Bar
Association has concluded…
that the establishment of
a new legal framework
of state-level regulatory
control over psychoactive
substances, intended to
render the illegal markets
for such substances
unprofitable, to restrict
access to psychoactive
substances by young persons
and to provide prompt health
care and essential services
to persons suffering from
chemical dependency and
addiction, will better serve
the objectives of reducing
crime, improving public order,
enhancing public health,
protecting children and
wisely using scarce public
resources, than current drug
policies”.
King County Bar Association,
‘Effective Drug Control: Toward A New
Legal Framework’ 2005
These fears continue to be stoked up by the
defenders of prohibition in vociferous and
populist appeals to emotions over evidence.
Heart-rending tales of tragic and wasted youth
are used by politicians and prohibitionists as
‘anecdata’, a rhetorical ploy to avoid substantive
discussion of the overwhelmingly negative effects
of prohibition - from Afghanistan through Iran to
Brixton, and Colombia through the Caribbean to
Moss Side. Many career politicians and policy-
makers are well aware that ‘what about the kids?’
is a line that can be exploited to deflect the focus
of the debate away from areas where they may
be exposed.
49
 Key points to make when this issue arises:
• The reality is that under the current regime
illegal drugs remain easily available to most
young people and a significant minority have
used one or more. Regulation cannot eliminate
such use, any more than it can with tobacco and
alcohol, but controlled availability will create a
significantly improved environment for reducing
harm, and longer term reductions in demand.
One of the key benefits of regulation is that it
allows appropriate controls to be put in place
over price and availability (location, times of
opening and age restrictions) as well as controls
over advertising and promotion. It is precisely
because drugs pose risks that they need to be
appropriately regulated, especially for young
people.
• legally regulated and controlled drug markets
will offer a far greater level of protection to
vulnerable groups than the chaotic, unregulated
and often violent illegal markets we have today
• Prohibition directly endangers and harms
young people; they are the most frequent victims
of drug motivated street crime and violence and
they carry the increased burden of risk from using
illegal drugs of unknown strength and purity
• The greatest threat from drugs to the health
of the young still comes, by a substantial margin,
from tobacco and alcohol. Legal regulation
will facilitate a more balanced, consistent and
believable health message on all drugs
• A criminal record (even for a minor drug
offence) can have a devastating effect on already
vulnerable individuals, fostering social exclusion.
A criminal record puts significant restrictions
on employment, travel, personal finance, and
housing. For many young people it is a greater
threat to their health and well-being than
occasional drug use, particularly if it involves the
trauma of imprisonment
• Young people are not stupid. Policies that
they rightly perceive to be failing, hypocritical,
unfair, persecuting, mean and pointless can
only undermine respect for the law, the police
and authority in general. If we want to reach
out to young people and other vulnerable or
socially excluded groups, in order to offer help
and encourage responsible lifestyle choices, then
declaring a war against them is not the way to
do it. Removing the spectre of criminality would
make drug services and information far more
attractive and accessible for those most in need
but hardest to reach.
(see also – ‘minimising harm to the young and
vulnerable’ p.23)

“So long as large sums of money are involved - and they are
bound to be if drugs are illegal - it is literally impossible to
stop the traffic, or even to make a serious reduction in its
scope.”
Milton Friedman,
Nobel Prize winner (economics)
Tyranny of the Status Quo 1984

50
3. WILL Profit
motivated
multinationals
takE over
control from
the cartels?
There is a legitimate concern that legal drug
markets could eventually be controlled by profit-
motivated corporations interested in aggressively
marketing and promoting drugs and drug use.
The pharmaceutical industry is already the focus
of considerable criticism for some of its ethical,
business and marketing practices. Similarly,
sections of the alcohol and (particularly)
tobacco industries have been guilty of unethical
conduct, putting profits before concerns for
public health with aggressive youth-oriented
marketing through, for example, sport and music
sponsorship. However, for all the criticisms
of commercial companies, they are infinitely
preferable to the alternative of international
organised criminal networks. To illustrate this
point it should be noted that unlike gangsters the
commercial companies:
• pay tax
• are subject to external scrutiny in the form
of independent auditors, trade and financial
regulatory bodies, unions and consumer
groups
• are answerable to the law and are legally
liable for their actions
• are not armed and do not use violence in
their daily business dealings
• can be controlled and regulated as deemed
appropriate by democratically elected
governments
“And if we want to help
sustainable economic
development in the drug-
ridden states such as
Colombia and Afghanistan,
we should almost certainly
liberalise drugs use in our
societies, combating abuse via
education, not prohibition,
rather than launching
unwinnable ‘wars on drugs’
which simply criminalise
whole societies.”
Adair Turner
Chairman of the UK Pensions Commission
and the UK Low Pay Commission, trustee
of WWF, former director of the CBI.
Speech to the WWF 06.11.03
Emerging legal drug markets offer a blank slate, a
rare opportunity for us to establish the optimum
legal regulatory framework that functions
in the public’s best interests. If, for example,
commercial companies are deemed unsuitable,
then production or supply of certain more
dangerous drugs could become an entirely state
run enterprise. When bookies were legalised the
Tote was (and remains) a state-run business, with
private companies entering the market at a later
stage.
Existing production and supply models for
currently legal drugs, with some modification,
will be appropriate for most drugs. Lessons learnt
from problems with existing legislation for legal
drugs are already informing sweeping reforms
such as bans on tobacco advertising and smoking
in public buildings (see: ‘talking about….alcohol
and tobacco’ p.37). These lessons will also help
us develop more effective regulation for drugs in
the post–prohibition era, avoiding the mistakes
of the past.
51
 “If there is any single lesson from the experience of the
last 30 years, it is that policies based wholly or mainly on
enforcement are destined to fail.”

“harm reduction rather than retribution should be the primary

focus of policy towards users of illegal drugs. We are glad to
note that the Government is making the first tentative steps in
that direction. We believe it should go further”

Home Affairs Select Committee

report ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: is it working?’ 09.05.02

4. Morals and
choices – for everything other than illegal drugs -
it uses public education via a range of institutions

messages
and media.

Drug policy is unique in using the criminal justice

As discussed earlier (p.52) the morality of drug
use, legal or illegal, is best avoided as a topic. It
is a polarising issue, and also a pointless one, as
policy simply has to deal with the reality - that
a majority of people use drugs of one form or
another. If the topic does arise, tackle it sensitively.
Always point out that personal moral choices are
different from moral policy making, which should
always seek to minimise harms for individuals and
society. Do not surrender the moral high ground
to advocates of counterproductive policies that
have created immense harm and suffering.
The Home Office argues that ‘Drugs are controlled
because of their harm potential and the law and
its sanctions help to limit experimentation’. Yet,
system and the threat of arrest, criminality and
imprisonment as a primary educational tool. It is
not the job of the criminal justice system to send
messages on public health or private morality,
and when it has attempted to do so it has been
singularly ineffective. There is nothing moral
in pursuing a policy that has created so much
crime, violence and conflict, that criminalises
and marginalises the most needy and vulnerable
members of our society, and that maximises the
risks associated with drug use. Transform believes
that policy should seek to minimise the harm
drugs cause to users and the wider community,
rather than seek to enforce a personal moral
position by increasing harm to others.

as already discussed, we do not prohibit by law
the possession of high-powered motorcycles,
rock climbing, casual sex without condoms,
high fat junk foods, alcohol, tobacco, or any
number of other activities and consumables
that involve risk to the user, with equivalent or
higher ‘harm potential’ than illegal drug use.
When the Government wishes to send messages
encouraging sensible, healthy or safer lifestyle
5. A leap in the
dark?
It is often suggested that legalisation and
regulation would be a dangerous gamble with the
health and well-being of the public, and that there
is no evidence to support such a radical move (this

52
was the main argument against legalisation put
forward by the Home Affairs Select Committee
Inquiry in 200219). Whilst it is true that no country
has yet legalised and regulated any of the drugs
covered under the UN conventions, it is wrong
to suggest that there is no evidence to support
reform arguments. A significant body of evidence
in support of drug policy and law reform can be
assembled from a range of sources:
• Currently legal drugs. Most obviously there
is evidence from the effective, if imperfect,
functioning of regulatory models for currently
legal drugs, primarily alcohol and tobacco.
These are toxic and highly addictive drugs that
are associated with significant health and social
harms. However, their legal regulation means the
government can intervene in areas such as price
and availability and they are not associated with
most of the social harms created by prohibition
regards production (see: ‘talking about…alcohol
and tobacco’ p.37).
• The end of alcohol prohibition. The problems
created by alcohol prohibition closely echo those
of modern drug prohibition, and the benefits of
its repeal are well documented.
• Heroin prescribing. The prescription model
for drug supply has a significant body of evidence
in its support20. Large scale heroin prescription
projects have been adopted in countries across
Western Europe including Holland, Germany, and
Switzerland with impressive results on indicators
for crime, health and social nuisance. Evidence
also comes from the UK which pioneered heroin
prescribing from the 1920s, only to see it heavily
restricted from the 70s onwards. It should be
noted that the prescribing model still functions
in the UK, with certain individuals prescribed
maintenance heroin in injectable form. The
numbers receiving prescriptions is small, around
300, but plans have been announced by the
(former) Home Secretary to expand this number
to around 2000. In this sense, legal control and
regulation of the most dangerous drug is already
in operation.
• The de-facto decriminalisation of personal
possession of drugs has taken place in numerous
countries, most commonly for cannabis, but in
some cases, - including Portugal, Spain, Italy,
Western Australia and Russia - the change
encompasses all drugs.
• The Dutch cannabis experiment. In Holland,
not only has possession of cannabis been
decriminalised, but sales from shops have been
tolerated and licensed since 1976. Whilst it
technically remains illegal, the pragmatic Dutch
model has come closest to showing how a legal
cannabis market can operate effectively. The
policy, in contrast to disparaging claims made
by prohibitionist detractors, has been effective
and enjoys broad public and official support.
It is useful to point out that since these moves
Holland has historically had lower levels of
cannabis use than either the US or UK (although
all have risen).
• Legalisation and regulation of gambling
and prostitution. Although these are activities
rather than products they illustrate how violence,
criminal markets and other problems associated
with high demand for illegal activities can be
minimised through legal regulation.
By contrast, the evidence is both extensive and
conclusive that prohibition has failed, both in
the UK and internationally. Prohibition itself
had no evidence base when it was devised and
implemented. It could itself be described as a
huge leap in the dark, gambling with the health
and well-being of the public, and demonstrably
failing on its own terms. By contrast, the moves
to regulated markets have a wealth of evidence
to show how they would work and the benefits
they would bring. There is clearly more work
53
 to be done: we need assessments, pilot studies
and other research designed to develop and
implement new policy (a veritable army of civil
servants will be freed up as the enforcement
approach is wound down). However, from what
we already know it is clear that moves towards
legal regulation are far from a leap in the dark.
6. How do
we get there?
Even once people have understood the reform
position and support it in principle, doubts may
remain about the feasibility of making progress,
given the wider political climate, public opinion
and the numerous domestic and international
institutional hurdles.
It is important to stress that change will come
in increments over a number of years and a new
post-prohibition world will not spring into being
overnight. Already this process is underway on
many levels:
• Personal use of drugs is widely (de facto)
decriminalised in much of Western Europe,
Russia, and regions of Canada, Australia and
South America.
• Supervised injecting rooms (and drug smoking
rooms) have been established in Vancouver,
Sydney, and across Europe.
• Heroin and other drugs, including stimulants,
are available through medical prescription, to
long term problem users in a number of countries
including the UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland
and Germany.
• Cannabis cultivation is decriminalised in
54
some countries/regions and licensed sales are
allowed in Holland.
• There is a global trend away from harsh,
costly and ineffective enforcement, towards a
greater emphasis on treatment, harm reduction
and approaching problem drug use primarily as a
public health issue.
These changes are chipping away at the monolith
of prohibition in many different places. At one
end, we can expect an expansion of medical
maintenance prescribing of opiates, and some
stimulants (possibly including cocaine); at the
other end, moves towards the decriminalisation
and eventual legalisation and regulation of
cannabis and other comparatively low risk drugs
(simultaneously we are witnessing tightening
of regulation of alcohol and tobacco). Different
countries will move at different paces and
information from those experiences will feed into
the body of knowledge about what works best for
different drugs in different environments.
Transform has produced a history of prohibition
time line1 – that looks into the future to map out
these how these changes may develop over the
coming 10-15 years.
7. DON T The UN
treaties mean
reform is
impossible?
The UN drugs treaties present a significant but
by no means insurmountable hurdle. They were
formulated in a long distant era (some of the
1961 convention was drafted in the 1940s, when
 “We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion
within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways
— including the possibility of legalisation and regulation —
to tackle the global drugs dilemma.”

Home Affairs Select Committee

report ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: is it working?’ 09.05.02

Al Capone was still alive) when the nature of
the drug problem was unrecognisably different
from the situation today. They are laws from
the distant past that have dramatically failed in
their stated goal of reducing drug availability and
harms, and are too rigidly drawn to adapt to our
present-day needs.
Mechanisms do exist to redraft and change the
treaties – but these are riddled with political and
institutional problems21. Unilateral withdrawal or
denunciation presents significant political costs
to individual states but may be facilitated by
three factors in the coming years.
1. There is a coalition of countries that are deeply
and increasingly unhappy with the conventions,
and will sooner or later present their objections
under a united front.
2. The strength of the treaties is diminishing
with each year, as they consistently fail to deliver
what they set out to. They are withering on the
vine as more and more countries move away from
the letter and spirit of the laws they enshrine
and become increasingly reluctant to fund their
expensive and failed programmes.
progressive and pragmatic human rights, harm
reduction and public health principles.
The key points here are:
• UK and other Governments need to show
leadership, embrace modernity and challenge
outdated and ineffectual legislation in whatever
arena it arises.
• There is a great deal that can be done in the
short term within the treaties that is avoided by
governments who misleadingly deploy the treaties
as an excuse for inaction. There is nothing to
stop us, for example, from setting up supervised
injecting rooms, prescribing drugs to problematic
users, shifting enforcement priorities towards de
facto decriminalisation of certain offences, or
moving from criminal to civil penalties for certain
offences.
• UN treaties are not, despite the protestations
of some prohibitionists, written in stone. They
can be and frequently are redrafted where the
political will exists, and there are other exit
options that can be pursued unilaterally or as
part of a coalition of progressive states.

3. There is increasing conflict between the UN
drug agencies that dogmatically adhere to an
outdated prohibitionist paradigm, and other UN
agencies including the WHO, the UNHCR, and
UNAIDS, who increasingly subscribe to more
Transform has outlined the steps by which this
process could occur in its history of prohibition
time line.1

55
 8. Where will all
the criminals go?
This concern has cropped up more and more
recently, which we take to be a sign that the other
more substantive concerns are being adequately
responded to. It does have some legitimacy: if the
most lucrative source of illegal income is denied
to organised criminals, what will they all do?
The Association of Chief Police Officers,
in arguments to the Home Affairs Select
Committee19 suggested it was absurd to think
legalisation would cause drug gangs to just
‘fade into the night’. Obviously it is ridiculous to
imagine they will all ‘go straight’ and get jobs in
McDonalds, or selling flowers, but it is equally
absurd to suggest they will all embark on some
previously unimagined crime spree. Clearly the
impacts will differ at the various levels of the
criminal infrastructure and, since reforms will be
phased over a number of years and not happen
overnight, criminal drug infrastructures will
experience a twilight period of diminishing profit
opportunities.
“Many officers believe the
33-year-old act is not only
outdated, but dangerous and
harmful, both to addicts and
to recreational drug users,
as it focuses on locking up
small-time offenders whilst
inadvertently granting the
monopoly of drug supply to
high-ranking criminals.”
Morrie Flowers,
Chairman OF The Scottish Police Federation
the Scotsman 13.04.06
56
Undoubtedly some criminals will seek out new
areas of illegal activity and it is realistic to expect
that there may be increases in some areas, such
as cyber-crime, extortion or other illicit trades
(counterfeit goods etc.). However, crime is to a
large extent a function of opportunity, and it
is impossible to imagine that there is enough
criminal opportunity to absorb the manpower
currently operating an illicit drugs market with a
turnover somewhere in the region of £300 billion
pounds a year globally, or over £6 billion a year
in the UK alone22. Even if there is some diversion
into other criminal activity, the big picture will
undoubtedly show a significant net fall in overall
criminal activity. Getting rid of illegal drug markets
is about reducing opportunities for crime.
This concern is a curious one because it seems,
when considered closely, to be advocating
prohibition as a way of maintaining illegal drug
empires so that organised criminals don’t have to
change jobs. By contrast, from our perspective
the argument is about removing the largest
criminal opportunity on earth, not just from
existing criminals but, significantly, from future
generations of criminals. Ending prohibition holds
the prospect of diverting millions of potential
young drug producers, traffickers, and dealers
from a life of crime.
9. When bad
things happen
Negative stories about illegal drugs, involving
crime, violence or death, always bring the drug
policy debate into the spotlight, and invariably
in the worst possible way: emotive and
sensationalised by ‘shock’ tabloid headlines and
ripe for political exploitation. Notorious examples
include the high profile deaths of Leah Betts in
1995 following ecstasy use (although the cause
of death has subsequently been associated with
acute water intoxication), and Rachel Whitear who
died of a heroin overdose in 2000. More recently
we have seen a spate of high-profile reporting
of violent crimes associated with mentally ill
individuals who also used various legal and illegal
drugs – with the illegal drugs, rather than any of
the other factors, being directly blamed for the
incident in shock terms (‘CANNABIS CRAZED AXE
MURDERER’).
In media reporting, the ‘if it bleeds - it leads’
ethos means that such events tend to dominate
the debate around responses to drugs in society.
This promotes a one dimensional debate and
a repetitive insistence that drugs are an ‘evil’
we must fight against, whilst doing nothing to
promote the responses that might make such
tragedies less likely. What is the best way to
respond?
• Acknowledge the tragedy and try to move
the discussion on to ways in which such events
might be avoided in the future. You can point out
that knee-jerk responses to such events and the
‘moral panics’ they provoke do not have a history
of creating effective policy.
• Not only have such tragedies occurred under
prohibition with increasing frequency, but illegal
markets make such events more likely. Prohibition
actively increases risks associated with drug use
and also directly fuels crime and violence. All
these tragedies have occurred under prohibition,
so how can prohibition be the answer?
“Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition is made up of [over
5000] current and former
members of law enforcement
who believe the existing drug
policies have failed in their
intended goals of addressing
the problems of crime, drug
abuse, addiction, juvenile
drug use, stopping the flow
of illegal drugs into this
country and the internal sale
and use of illegal drugs. By
fighting a war on drugs the
government has increased the
problems of society and made
them far worse. A system
of regulation rather than
prohibition is a less harmful,
more ethical and a more
effective public policy.
“The mission of LEAP is
to reduce the multitude
of unintended harmful
consequences resulting from
fighting the war on drugs
and to lessen the incidence
of death, disease, crime, and
addiction by ultimately ending
drug prohibition.”
Quote from THE mission statement of
Law Enforcement
Against Prohibition.

• Directing resources into counter-productive

enforcement diverts funding from precisely the
sort of public health interventions (education,
prevention, treatment etc.) that may reduce the
incidence of such tragedies.

57
 7. Further Resources
To become an unassailable advocate for drug policy reform you
will need to have the best possible facts, analysis and argument
at your fingertips. This guide can point you in the right direction
but you will need to make sure you have done the appropriate
research for you chosen topic and audience.

The Transform website www.tdpf.org.uk is the best place to start. There you can find:

• An extensive range of briefings on specific topics

• Transform’s fact research guide – providing headline statistics, guides to sources of information on
key topics and a review of the quality of data available on each
• The Transform quote archive – supporters of reform from politics and public life
• Links to key reports from Parliament and Whitehall, NGO and academic sources
• Media articles and news reports
• Categorised links to independent and Government organisations and information sources in the
UK and around the world
• Links to key Parliamentary activity and debate

You can also contact Transform directly for help with specific
queries. Please email info@tdpf.org.uk or call the Transform
office on 0117 941 5810

58
Key reports
on policy
alternatives
to prohibition
Note: All of the reports listed below are
freely available online and are linked here:
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_KeyReports
British Colombia Health Officers Council
‘A Public Health Approach to Drug
Control’ (2005)
This report was produced by an independent
group of public health officials in British
Colombia, Canada, and is a detailed consideration
of regulatory options for currently illegal drugs.
Thoughtful, detailed and logical analysis – some
of the clearest objective thinking ever done on
the subject.
The King County Bar Association:
‘Effective Drug Control: Toward A New
Legal Framework’ (2005)
This report comes from the drug policy project
of the Kings County (Seattle) Bar Association.
A detailed discussion of frameworks for drug
regulation from a legal rather than public heath
perspective. A comprehensive review of regulatory
options and wider policy considerations.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation
“After the War on Drugs - Options for
Control” (2004)
Transform’s report examines the key themes in
the drug policy reform debate, detailing how
legal regulation of drug markets will operate, and
providing a roadmap for reform.
COMING SOON – Transform is currently working
in conjunction with the HOBC and KCBA to
produce the definitive guide to drug policy and
law reform, combining and developing the work
of the three reports detailed above. ‘After the War
on Drugs - A Blueprint for Change’ is due for
publication in Spring 2008
Reviews of UK
drug policy
Report of the Independent Inquiry into
the Misuse Of Drugs Act 1971 Police
Foundation (2000).
(also known as ‘the Runciman Report’ after the
Inquiry chair Dame Ruth Runciman)
This inquiry was set up in August 1997 by the
independent charity the Police Foundation (not
to be confused with the Police Federation) to
review the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971. It made a detailed analysis of current
policy failings and offered recommendations
for a number of practical reforms, including the
reclassification of cannabis, ecstasy and LSD, and
focusing spending on health rather than punitive
enforcement. It did not examine the possibility
of decriminalisation or legalisation/regulation
in any detail, but still provides a useful factual
and historical analysis of drug policy in the UK,
and sets the scene for the Home Affairs Select
Committee report which followed it.
Home Affairs Select Committee: The
Government’s drug policy:
Is it working? (2002)
An in-depth critique of UK policy and the
first detailed parliamentary consideration of
decriminalisation and legalisation since the
59
 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act entered the statute
books. The range of expert witness evidence
taken and the scope and detail of the report was
unprecedented. It again provides a useful factual
and historical summary of the drug phenomenon
in the UK and offers a spectrum of progressive
responses. Whilst stopping short of calling for
substantive law reform its final recommendation
was “that the Government initiates a discussion
within the Commission on narcotic drugs of
alternative ways - including the possibility of
legalsiation and regulation - to tackle the global
drugs dilemma.”
The Prime Minster’s No 10 Strategy Unit
report: Understanding the Issues (2003)
The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit produced
a detailed economic and social analysis of
International and domestic drug policy. This is an
extremely useful document: firstly because of its
structured, well referenced and clearly presented
factual content (designed for ministerial
consumption), and secondly because of its
provenance, commissioned by and presented
to the Prime Minister, having been researched
and drafted by some of the UK’s top policy
thinkers. Its analysis showed with crystal clarity
how supply-side enforcement interventions are
ineffective and indeed actively counterproductive
– presumably why the Government tried
unsuccessfully to prevent its publication (it was
leaked to the Guardian).
The Science and Technology Select
Committee report on drug classification
‘Making a Hash of it’ (2006)
This report put the ABC drug classification system
and the scientific basis of drug policy generally
under some close and overdue scientific scrutiny.
There is some critique of the institutions involved,
but more useful is the detailed analysis of the
unscientific way in which drug policy has been
60
devised and implemented – considering the lack
of evidence for a deterrent effect for example. Very
useful and informative review from a scientific
perspective rather than an overtly political one.
RSA Commission on Illegal Drugs,
Communities and Public Policy (2007)
Described as an ‘Unofficial Royal Commission’ the
RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement Arts
Manufactures and Commerce) Commission on
Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy report
was set up to take a fresh look at the drug policy
and try to untangle the complex knot of issues
commonly referred to as ‘the drugs problem.’
A detailed and forward thinking analysis whose
otherwise commendable recommendations hint
at, but stop just shy of, calls for legalisation and
regulation.
Just the facts
Transform’s Fact Research Guide is a new
addition to the Transform website, offering a
critical guide to available information on key
topics in the drugs debate, both official and
independent.
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_FactResearchGuide.htm
Drugscope Information Services
Drugscope is an independent umbrella group
providing information services to over 900
member organisations in the drugs field. It
provides an unrivalled range of useful information
services based around its unique and extensive
drug literature library.
www.drugscope.co.uk
Government information services
Various government and parliamentary agencies
produce statistical bulletins, reports and analysis.
Good places to start are:
The www.drugs.gov website – in theory a portal
for most relevant Government reports and data,
although in practice it can be quite difficult to
pin down what you are really after as the site
content reflects a political need to present the
drug strategy in a positive light. If, for example
you wanted to know whether drugs had become
less available over the past 10 years (a key target
of the drug strategy) the publications section
under ‘drug supply’ will provide little illumination.
However, there is some very useful content here,
including publications by the Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs which are of consistently
high quality.
Often more useful is the Home Office research
development statistics drugs page – www.
homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ which lists all published
Home Office statistical bulletins, reports and
analysis. It is more statistically heavy than
the more public face of the drugs.gov site and
will require considerably more digging and
interpretation but, if you have the patience, it is
the best source of un-spun official Home Office
data and research.
The Rhetoric
Transform’s published articles web page
contains a collection of our various writings
and commentary printed in national media and
specialised publications, including a collection of
our published letters.
www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_
TransformInTheMedia
Transform has an extensive collection of quotes
from high profile public figures in support of
drug law reform. The quote archive is divided into
the following sections; Politics, Opinion Formers,
Criminal Justice, Celebrities/Public Figures, NGOs
and Statutory sector, and Religious Leaders. This
collection will provide inspiration, guidance
on language and presentation for different
audiences, as well as reassurance that you, as a
reformer, are in very distinguished company.
www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_
supporters
Transform has a web page listing recent debates
on drug policy issues in The House of Commons
and The House of Lords. There are many eloquent
and passionate reformers in both Houses and
the links provided provide a useful lesson on
how to debate this issue in the political arena,
as well as the familiar rhetorical devices used by
the defenders of prohibition. You can also use the
excellent website www.theyworkforyou.com to do
key word searches of the all recent parliamentary
activity, including debate and parliamentary
questions.
www.tdpf.org.uk/Parliament_Debates
You can learn a lot from the numerous
pro-reform opinion writers:
Johann Hari – consistently eloquent writer on
drug law reform in the Independent. An archive
of his writings on the issue is available here:
www.johannhari.com/archive/index.php?subject
=drugLegalisation
Polly Toynbee- feted by left and right, the
Guardian columnist and Transform supporter has
produced some excellent opinion pieces on drug
law reform, for example:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/
comment/0,,941745,00.html
Simon Jenkins – Former editor of the Times, now
61
 columnist for The Times, Sunday Times, Guardian,
and Evening Standard, in all of which he regularly
produces barnstorming opinion pieces, including
this one: ‘The really tough way to control drugs is
to license them’
w w w. t i m e s o n l i n e . c o . u k / a r t i c l e / 0 , , 2 0 8 8 -
2472142,00
Simon jenkins and polly toynbee
SPEAKING AT A TRANSFORM EVENT
Mary Ann Seighart - Assistant editor of
the Times and outspoken supporter of reform.
For example: ‘Why we should medicalise not
criminalise’
w w w. t i m e s o n l i n e . c o . u k / a r t i c l e / 0 , , 1071 -
2501856,00
For more links to pro reform opinion writers visit
the Transform quote archive
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_
supporters_opinionformers.htm
….and some anti-reform / prohibitionist
advocate opinion writers
There are others, but the three below are
arguably the highest-profile and most outspoken
ultra-prohibitionist opinion writers in the UK.
They have a lot in common and all are superb
polemicists. Well worth reading as a way of
getting to grips with the rhetoric of ideological
prohibition (To note: the author of this guide has
62
publicly debated both Phillips and Hitchens - and
won on audience votes both times).
Melanie Phillips – The most vocal anti-drug
law reform writer of the reactionary right-
leaning opinion writers (currently working for
the Daily Mail). She advocates using the criminal
justice system to enforce personal morality and
is passionately anti-legalisation/law reform,
characterising the drug reform movement as a
sinister elite dedicated to destroying the fabric of
society. In many respects a brilliantly convincing
prohibitionist for certain audiences, she takes
spectacular liberties with the scientific and
factual basis for her arguments.
www.melaniephillips.com/
Peter Hitchens – Another barnstorming Daily
Mail Columnist. In his (apparently self-edited)
Wikipedia entry his views on drugs are described
thus: “He argues that the law’s active disapproval
of drug taking is an essential counterweight to
the “pro-drug propaganda” of popular culture.
He considers attempts to combat drug use by
restricting supply and persecuting dealers, futile,
if possession and use are not punished as well. He
answers claims that the “War on Drugs” has failed
by suggesting that there has been no serious war
on drugs for many years. Hitchens believes that
the approach, known as “harm reduction”, is
defeatist and counter-productive.” . An example
of his work:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2006/05/
next_statefunde
Simon Heffer – A Daily Telegraph editor and
outspoken in a simiarly prohibitionist vein to
Phillips and Hitchens, though, if possible, even
more confrontational: for example, from the
linked article below:”Happy though the thought
is, we cannot take 6,000 drugs dealers out on to a
piece of waste ground and shoot them in the back
of the head” www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.
jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/13/do1301.xml
Appendix:
Using common ground to critique prohibition and make the case
for legalisation and regulation.

The table below uses the common ground principles and aims outlined in chapter 2 to provide a
summary of the main arguments against prohibition and in favour of regulatory alternatives.

Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

To minimise problematic drug use and related health harms,

including drug related deaths

• Problematic use and related harm has
risen dramatically under prohibition.
• Problem drug users, often the most
vulnerable, excluded and needy members
of society, are demonised and stigmatised
by the criminal justice approach. It is totally
unsuited to responding to their needs and
helping them rebuild their lives.
• The harm maximising effects of
prohibition would largely be removed
creating an environment in which more
effective treatment, education and harm
minimisation programmes could evolve,
funded by redirected enforcement spending.
• Problem users will benefit from support,
not punishment and further marginalisation.

• Counterproductive enforcement
spending diverts limited drug policy
budgets away from where they can be
more effectively spent on treatment and
rehabilitation.

63
 Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

To minimise problematic drug use and related health harms,

including drug related deaths

• Prohibition focuses policy on combating • Numbers of drug related deaths would

the drugs themselves, and obscures the fact
that problematic use is primarily a symptom
of social deprivation. Only by addressing
these underlying causes can problematic use
be reduced in the long term – this is not a
problem that can be solved by the criminal
justice system.
drop dramatically. Dependent users would no
longer have to face the risks of impure street
drugs and blood borne diseases including
HIV and hepatitis.
• Policy makers could focus on addressing
the social issues that underly most
problematic drug use.

To minimise criminal activity associated with the production and supply

and use of drugs
To minimise disorder, violence and social nuisance related to drug use

• Prohibition actively stimulates crime at • Legally regulated supplies of heroin

all scales23.
• Recent Home Office research into the
social and economic impact of Class A drugs
in the UK estimated the costs in 2000 at
between £10.1 and £17.4 billion. 88% of
this total is the costs of drug-related crime,
graphically illustrating how the costs of drug
misuse itself are eclipsed by the far greater
costs of crime created by prohibition24.
• The reason that a relatively small
number of dependent users of illegal drugs
commit an enormous amount of crime
whilst huge numbers of dependent users
of legal or prescription drugs do not is
essentially a matter of economics: iIlegal
drugs are expensive, legal drugs are not.
and cocaine – on prescription or at prices
that do not necessitate fundraising-
related offending – have the potential
to immediately reduce property crime
committed by individual users by as much
as a half (an effect observed with heroin
prescribing projects in cities across Europe 20).
• Simultaneously, most street prostitution
and street dealing would disappear and there
would be significant reductions in turf wars,
gang violence and gun crime.
• With illegal drug markets dismantled,
millions of drug users no longer criminalised,
and dependent users no longer forced
into offending to support a habit, a huge
resource burden will be lifted from the entire
criminal justice system, from police and
customs, through to the courts, prisons and
probation services.

64
 Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

To minimise criminal activity associated with the production and supply

and use of drugs
To minimise disorder, violence and social nuisance related to drug use

• A Number 10 Downing St Strategy Unit
report in 2003 similarly estimated the crime
costs of crime to support Class A drug habits
to be £20 billion a year12.
• In the wider world illegal drug profits
are fuelling criminal activity on a huge scale,
as well as funding corruption, conflict and
terrorism in already unstable regions such as
Colombia and Afghanistan.
• The largest single profit opportunity for
organised crime would evaporate, and with it
the largest single source of police corruption.
• With major illegal drug markets
dismantled, millions of drug users no longer
criminalised, and dependent users no longer
forced into offending to support a habit, a
huge resource burden will be lifted from the
entire criminal justice system, from police
and customs, through to the courts, prisons
and probation services.

• Another obvious knock on effect of

the dramatic drop in crime would be a
huge reduction in the non-violent prison
population. The prison population would
quickly fall by between a third and a half,
ending the funding and overcrowding crisis.

To minimise drug related harm to vulnerable groups,

young people and families

• Prohibition not only increases harms • Young people would be able – and more
for drug users, the majority of whom are likely – to access drug services without the
young people, but also creates new harms threat of criminality.
associated with violent illegal markets and
it is the young and vulnerable who bear the
brunt of these harm.

• Young people are on the front line of

the drug war and constitute the majority of
its ‘collateral damage’ in the UK and around
the world

65
 Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

To minimise drug related harm to vulnerable groups,

young people and families

• The young are the most frequent victims
of drug related crime and violence, both in
the UK and in producer and transit countries
such as Colombia and Jamaica.
• Prohibition actively puts the young
and vulnerable in harm’s way – literally and
metaphorically - as they are caught in the
crossfire of the drug war.
• A more consistent, believable and
effective message on the dangers of
all drugs could be put across through
appropriate public education channels
– rather than using law enforcement as a
primary educational tool.

To ensure adequate provision of support and drug treatment

for people seeking help

• The criminal justice system is not the
appropriate arena for addressing problematic
drug use.
• Outcomes for criminal justice
administered treatment are extremely poor25.
• A criminal justice oriented policy
directs resources away from potentially
effective education, prevention and
treatment services, into enforcement that is
demonstrably both ineffective and actively
counterproductive.
• Drug services would no longer have to
use the criminal justice system as a primary
point of entry. Their work could be defined
by public health indicators rather than
crime reduction measures and the overt
politicisation of the populist law and order
agenda. Treatment decisions would be made
by doctors and treatment professionals and
not shaped by politicians or interference
from the criminal justice system.
• The ‘peace dividend’ from ending the
‘drug war’ could easily fund the necessary
expansion of services.

66
 Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

Drug policy should seek to reduce drug related harm

• Prohibition maximises harms • Policy would be based on harm

associated with drug use and creates new reduction principles26.
harms associated with the illegal market.
Introducing harm reduction measures within
the existing harm maximising prohibitionist
framework is an exercise in futility.

Drug policy is primarily a public health issue

• Under prohibition, drug policy has
become predominantly a criminal justice
issue; a policy experiment and anomaly
within the health arena that has no
precedent and has had disastrous outcomes.
• With public health agencies taking
the lead in policy development and
implementation this principle would become
practice rather than just an aspiration. The
counterproductive and distorting influence
of ideological crusades for a drug free
society would be removed.

Drug policy should be based on evidence of effectiveness

• Prohibition is currently an evidence free • Freed from the shackles of ideological

zone that has required a huge propaganda
exercise and decades of distorted and
misrepresented statistics to maintain it.
• Policy outcomes are not evaluated
against meaningful indicators, leading
to entrenchment of systemic failure, and
unresponsiveness to changing circumstances
over the past 40 years.
prohibitionist dogma and populist law
and order politics, policy would be able
to develop based on sound science and
evidence of effectiveness.
• Policy outcomes would be able to be
rigorously evaluated against meaningful
indicators to demonstrate effectiveness.
Policy can then evolve based on the success
or failure of different approaches.

67
 Problems with prohibition
Drug policy should offer good value for money
• The ‘war on drugs’ has been a ruinous
waste of billions of pounds of taxpayers’
money for generations. Not only is it hugely
expensive, with outcomes that are the exact
opposite of its stated aims, but it actually
creates secondary costs – in public health
harms and crime creation.
• Prohibition ensures that the profits
from an ever-expanding multi billion pound
market are untaxed and accrue exclusively to
criminal networks and gangsters.
• Drug enforcement spending has never
been subject to an independent cost benefit
analysis, properly evaluated or audited
against meaningful indicators.
All drugs are potentially dangerous, and all drug use is intrinsically risky
• Illegal production and supply of drugs
increases risks associated with their use.
68
Benefits of legal regulation
• Billions of pounds currently wasted
enforcing prohibition and dealing with its
catastrophic fallout would be saved. This
‘peace dividend’ from ending the drug war
would be freed up for other criminal justice
programmes. Funds could be redirected into
drug treatment and education, or longer-
term investment in reducing the social
deprivation underlying most problematic
drug use: a post-drug war ‘Marshall Plan’.
• The illegal drug market in the UK is
estimated to be worth at least £6 billion a
year. Globally it turns over £300 billion a
year28. Regulating and taxing this market
would, as with alcohol and tobacco, create
potentially significant revenues for the
Treasury, as well as creating the opportunity
to control prices.
• The additional dangers of unknown
strength and purity that are created by
illegal production and supply would be
removed.
• All drugs could at last have health
warnings, dosage and safety information on
the packaging. Further information could be
available at point of sale or through better
funded public health education.
 Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

Domestic and international drug policy should foster peace,

good governance, economic stability and development

• National sovereignty is undermined by • States would be free to make democratic

the inflexibility of the UN drug conventions;
entire avenues of policy development are
closed for reasons of outdated drug war
ideology and its entrenched legal structures
– not evidence of effectiveness.
decisions about how they control and
regulate drugs within their borders.
• Policy could respond to changing
circumstances.

• The world has changed dramatically • The corrupting and destabilising

since the 1950s when the UN drug influence of illegal drug profits would be
conventions were drafted. They are removed.
hopelessly outdated and irrelevant to
contemporary society.

• Billions in illegal drug profits are used

to corrupt all levels of police, judiciary and
government in key drug production and
transit countries – dramatically undermining
their social, political and economic
development prospects.

Policy should be compatible with domestic

and international human rights legislation

• Only a few decades ago problematic • Civil and human rights abuses could no
drug users were treated in the UK for what longer be perpetrated under the banner of
they were – vulnerable people in need the drugs war.
of help. Prohibition turns the majority of
those without substantial private means
into criminal outcasts, exacerbating social
exclusion and throwing yet more obstacles in
the way of achieving employment, housing,
personal finance, and a generally productive
and healthy life.

69
 Problems with prohibition Benefits of legal regulation

Policy should be compatible with domestic

and international human rights legislation

• Millions of otherwise law abiding • The threat of criminalisation and

individuals are being criminalised in a way
that is arbitrary, unjust, and incompatible
with the European Charter of Human Rights
now incorporated into UK law.
• There is widespread use of the death
penalty for drug offences in violation of
the UN Charter of Human Rights. China
routinely celebrates UN world anti-drugs day
with mass executions of drug offenders, 64
being executed on June 27th 2002, up from
54 the previous year28. Over 2000 people
died during Thailand’s drug ‘crackdown’
launched in 2002, many thought to be extra-
judicial police executions29.
inprisonment would be lifted from millions
of otherwise law abiding citizens.
• The arbitrary and illegal use of the death
penalty for non violent drug offences would
end.
• Indigenous cultures, traditional
practices and marginalised, impoverished
and vulnerable peoples would no longer be
threatened by drug war policing and military
interventions.

• An estimated 2 million people are

imprisoned globally for drug offences, one
quarter of the total prison population. This
places a huge financial and human cost on
society with little evidence of any benefits.

• Indigenous cultures in some producer

countries that have long traditions of
medical and ceremonial uses of local drug
crops (coca, opium and cannabis) have come
under attack through the criminalisation of
traditional practices.

• It is invariably the weakest links in the

illegal drug chain (peasant growers, drug
‘mules’, and users) who feel the greatest
impact of drug enforcement. Serious
criminals have the resources to evade legal
consequences and bargaining power as
informants if they are caught.

70
Notes and
References
1
History of prohibition timeline:
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Timeline
2 The other key beneficiaries being organised
crime
3 See the Transform website links page for
extensive listing of drug policy and law reform
organisations around the world
4 ‘Room for Manoeuvre: Overview of
comparative legal research into national drug
laws of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the
Netherlands and Sweden and their relation to
three international drugs conventions’ Nicholas
Dorn, Alison Jamieson. Drugscope 2000
www.ahrn.net/library_upload/uploadfile/
manoeuvre.pdf
5 FAQ on prohibition:
www.tdpf.org.uk/AboutUs_FAQ.htm#_
prohibition
6 Archive of quotes from supporters of
reform: www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_
supporters
7 ‘Attitudes to Drug Policy and Drug Laws: A
review of the international evidence’ Dr Russell
Newcombe 2004
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/newcombe2004.pdf
8 2003 Alcohol harm reduction strategy:
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/
su/alcohol/pdf/CabOffce%20AlcoholHar.pdf
9 ‘The drug prohibition church and the
adventure of reformation’ Peter Cohen.
International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 14,
Issue 2, April 2003, pp. 213-215.
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen.church.html
10 Transformfact research guide to enforcement
expenditure: www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_
FactResearchGuide_EnforcementExpenditure
11 Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs
(ACMD) report ‘Pathways to Problems’ 2006
12 No
10 Strategy Unit drugs report 2003:
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_Strategy_Unit_
Drugs_Report_phase_1.
13 For more discussion on enforcement and
deterrence see the Transform briefing on drug
classification: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_
General_Drug_Classification.htm , and this post
on the Transform blog: http://transform-drugs.
blogspot.com/2006/10/classification-and-
deterrence-wheres.html
14 The
EU European Monitoring Centre for Drugs
and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)produces and
annual report and a variety of other statistical
information comparing drug use across Europe,
based on national reporting: www.emcdda.
europa.eu
15 Science
and Technology Select Committee
2006 report on drug classification : www.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/
cmselect/cmsctech/1031/103102.htm
16 There
is a fascinating exploration of the
prohibitionist insecurity in the US Drug
Enforcement Agency’s ‘speaking out against
drug legalization’ website: www.usdoj.gov/
dea/demand/speakout/index.html, which, for
the record, is comprehensively debunked here:
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pubs/legaliz/
contents.htm
17 That
alcohol and tobacco would be classified
71
 as A/B were they illegal has recently been
pointed out by the Home Affairs Select
Committee (drugs report 2002 – see: ref 19),
The Science and Technology Select Committee
(drug classification report 2006), and even the
Government appointed Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs (‘pathways to problems’
report 2006) – which is responsible for making
recommendations to Government on drug
classification.
18 ‘FromSoft drink to Hard Drug; A Snapshop
History of Coca, Cocaine and Crack’ Mike Jay
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_Cocaine_MJay.
htm
(Note: this research was updated in 2006, see:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/
rdsolr1606.pdf)
25 See
National Audit Office 2004 on Drug
Treatment and Testing Orders: www.nao.org.
uk/pn/03-04/0304366.htm
26 Definition
of harm reduction from the UK
Harm Reduction Alliance: www.ukhra.org/harm_
reduction_definition.html
27 Transform
fact research guide to the size of
the drug market: www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_
FactResearchGuide_SizeOfTheDrugMarket

28 CNN
19 Home Affairs Select Committee Report news report: www.cnn.com/2001/
‘The Government’s Drug Policy: is it working?’ WORLD/asi apcf/east/06/26/china.drugs/
2002 www.tdpf.org.uk/Parliament_KeyReports.
29 Amnesty
htm#hasc International report www.amnesty.
org/wire.nsf/May2003/Thailand
20 ‘Prescribing
heroin: what is the evidence?’
Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2003 www.jrf.org.
uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/943.asp

21 Discussion
of drug law reform and the UN
conventions: www.wiredinitiative.com/pdf/DBT_
QandA.pdf

22 Transform fact research guide to the

size of the illegal drug market: www.tdpf.
org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_
SizeOfTheDrugMarket

23 Formore discussion see ‘Drugs and Crime

– the link is prohibition’ briefing here: http://
www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_Crime_DrugsandCrime-
TheLinkisProhibition.htm

24 Christine
Godfrey et al (2002) – ‘The economic
and social costs of Class A drug use in England
and Wales, 2000’ www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/
pdfs2/hors249.pdf

72
1920’s US ANTI PROHIBITION POSTER

73
74
Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Easton Business Centre, Felix Road, Bristol BS5 0HE.
Tel: 0117 941 5810.
Email: info@tdpf.org.uk
Web: www.tdpf.org.uk

Transform Drug Policy Foundation is a Registered Charity no.1100518 and Limited Company no.4862177

75
AFTER THE WAR ON DRUGS : TOOLS FOR THE DEBATE
is a guide to making the case for drug policy reform. It is designed to:
• reframe the debate, moving it beyond stale ideological arguments into substantive,
rational engagement
• provide the language and analysis to challenge the prohibitionist status quo, and to
make the case for evidence based alternatives

Transform Drug Policy Foundation are the UK’s leading independent voice for drug
policy reform, with ten years’ experience of debating the issues in local, national and
international politics and media.

“Transform continues to lead the debate on drug law reform. This guide
will be invaluable for policy makers, enabling them to engage on this
vital issue with confidence and clarity.”

Polly Toynbee, Columnist, the Guardian

“If there is only one thing that I learned from over 30 years policing
it is that our current approach to tackling the illegal drugs market
isn’t working, and that debate on policy alternatives is needed today
more than ever. The Transform guide to the debate will therefore be
of great interest to everyone in the criminal justice system, and to the
politicians who oversee it.”

Tom Lloyd, Former Chief Constable, Cambridgeshire

“Transform presents the most clear-headed and rational approach

to the issue of drugs. It cuts through the fear and prejudice by using
evidence-based arguments.”

Mary Ann Sieghart, Assistant Editor, The Times

“The criminal justice approach to addressing the problems of drugs

in society has not been a success. A mature debate on pragmatic
alternatives is urgently needed and Transform’s new publication very
helpfully sets out how to take the reform position forward.”

Baroness Vivien Stern, Senior Research Fellow, International Centre for Prison Studies

© Transform Drug Policy Foundation 2007

www.tdpf.org.uk
ISBN 978-0-9556428-0-7
Transform Drug Policy Foundation is a registered Charity no. 1100518 and Limited
Company no. 4862177